ANTI-DEFECTION LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEAKER UNDER INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

The Anti-Defection Law in India serves as an important constitutional provision to safeguard the stability of national politics by reducing defections. This paper explores the convergence of the Anti-Defection Law with Administrative Law, particularly focusing on the decision-making role of the Speaker in disqualification cases. The paper delves into the debate surrounding the scope of judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions, the legal validity of the law in light of the doctrine of separation of powers, and the application of principles of natural justice and fairness. Through an analysis of landmark cases, including Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the paper highlights the evolving nature of law in response to societal changes.

Furthermore, it examines the significant responsibilities entrusted to the Speaker, whose role as a quasi-judicial authority raises questions about the impartiality of the decision-making process. The dual role of the Speaker as both a political leader and an adjudicator often leads to perceived impartiality, potentially undermining the trust in the legislative process.

Additionally, the paper discusses the concerns posed by the Speaker’s dual role as a political leader and an adjudicator, which may lead to bias in decision-making. The recommendations of the Dinesh Goswami Committee and the 170th Law Commission Report, advocating for the involvement of the President or Governor in disqualification matters, are also examined as potential solutions to address these concerns. This paper argues for the necessity of maintaining a balance between the Speaker’s authority and the judiciary’s oversight to ensure the fairness of the political process and uphold the principles of good governance.