Context:-
The Calcutta High Court has given West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee a deadline to pass an order in the defection case involving MLA Mukul Roy. He had contested and won the 2021 Assembly elections on a BJP ticket and then joined the Trinamool Congress. BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, has petitioned the Speaker to disqualify Roy and two other BJP MLAs for joining the Trinamool Congress. These petitions are under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, i.e. the anti-defection law.
Anti-defection proceedings are also going on in other states. In Jharkhand, former CM Babulal Marandi faces such proceedings after merging his party, Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), with the BJP.
In Rajasthan, six Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLAs have merged their legislature party with the ruling Congress, a move challenged by the BSP, and the Supreme Court recently gave the six MLAs a final opportunity to explain the merger.
In Lok Sabha, two Trinamool and one YSR Congress Party MPs face proceedings. The Trinamool Congress wants to disqualify its two MPs (one of them is Sisir Adhikari, father of Suvendu) for joining the BJP, and the YSRCP wants to disqualify its MP for “anti-party activities”.
What is the anti-defection law, and what is its purpose?
The anti-defection law punishes individual MPs/MLAs for leaving one party for another. It allows a group of MP/MLAs to join (i.e. merge with) another political party without inviting the penalty for defection.
And it does not penalise political parties for encouraging or accepting defecting legislators. Parliament added it to the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule in 1985.
Its purpose was to bring stability to governments by discouraging legislators from changing parties. It was a response to the toppling of multiple state governments by party-hopping MLAs after the general elections of 1967.
What constitutes defection?
The law covers three kinds of scenarios.
One is when legislators elected on the ticket of one political party “voluntarily give up” membership of that party or vote in the legislature against the party’s wishes. A legislator’s speech and conduct inside and outside the legislature can lead to deciding the voluntarily giving up membership.
The second scenario arises when an MP/MLA who has been elected as an independent joins a party later.
The third scenario relates to nominated legislators. In their case, the law specifies that they can join a political party within six months of being appointed to the House, and not after such time.
Violation of the law in any of these scenarios can lead to a legislator being penalised for defection.
Who is the deciding authority?
The Presiding Officers of the Legislature (Speaker, Chairman) are the deciding authorities in such cases. The Supreme Court has held legislators can challenge their decisions before the higher judiciary.
How long does it take for deciding cases of defection?
The law does not provide a time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case. There have been many instances when a Speaker has not determined the case of a defecting MLA until the end of the legislature term.
There have also been instances of defecting MLAs becoming ministers while a defection petition against them has been pending before the Speaker.
Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed a minister in Manipur when the Speaker did not decide the defection petition against him even after three years. The court held that ideally, Speakers should take a decision on a defection petition within three months.
Has the anti-defection law ensured the stability of governments?
No. Parties often have to sequester MLAs in resorts to prevent them from changing their allegiance or getting poached by a rival party or an opposing faction of their party. Recent examples are Rajasthan (2020), Maharashtra (2019), Karnataka (2019 and 2018), and Tamil Nadu (2017).
Parties have also been able to use the anti-defection law to their advantage.
In 2019 in Goa, 10 of the 15 Congress MLAs merged their legislature party with the BJP. In the same year, in Rajasthan, six BSP MLAs merged their party with the Congress (the case being heard in the Supreme Court), and in Sikkim, 10 of the 15 MLAs of the Sikkim Democratic Front have joined the BJP.
Have any suggestions been made to improve the law?
Some commentators have said the law has failed and recommended its removal. Former Vice President Hamid Ansari has suggested that it apply only to save governments in no-confidence motions.
The Election Commission has suggested it should be the deciding authority in defection cases. Others have argued that the President and Governors should hear defection petitions.
And last year, the Supreme Court said Parliament should set up an independent tribunal headed by a retired judge of the higher judiciary to decide defection cases swiftly and impartially.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.