There is no need to amend the provisions of the anti-defection law as they have stood the test of time and judicial scrutiny, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju told the Rajya Sabha on Thursday.
In response to another query on whether the government was seeking to increase the retirement age of judges, Mr. Rijiju said there was no such proposal.
To a question about objectionable remarks by judicial officers or a judge, the Law Minister said “in-house mechanism” is sufficient to deal with such situations.
“Since, the provisions of the Tenth Schedule (popularly called the anti-defection law) have stood the test of time and several judicial scrutinies, there does not appear to be any need for carrying out any amendments as of now,” Mr. Rijiju said in a written response to a question on whether the anti-defection law in its present form is adequate to stop induced defections.
The question, asked by N.D. Gupta of the Aam Admi Party (AAP), is significant in the backdrop of recent political developments in Maharashtra and the collapse of Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government following a rebellion by Shiv Sena’s Eknath Shinde and most of the party MLAs.
Asked if there have been different interpretations of the anti-defection law by the courts, the Law Minister said a seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, in the Kihoto Hollohon Vs Zachilhu case, had upheld the entire provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, except paragraph seven relating to the judiciability of the decisions of Speaker or chairpersons of the legislatures.
“Although some courts have examined the provisions in the past, no specific directions have been given for amendments,” he said.
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with defection of elected and nominated members from their political party and has stringent provisions.
However, there has been debate on its effectiveness as many legislators have adopted the mass resignations approach to bring down the strength of an Assembly and facilitate a government change.
Replying to a question on whether the retirement age of Supreme Court judges will be increased from 65 and high court judges from 62, the minister said, ”No sir. There is no proposal to increase the retirement age.”
The Constitution (114th Amendment) Bill was introduced in 2010 to increase the retirement age of High Court judges to 65 years. However, it was not taken up for consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha, Mr. Rijiju said.
The Law Minister also answered a question on whether a district judge can be appointed as the Law Secretary of the Centre or States. “A district judge is not barred from being appointed as Secretary in the Department of Legal Affairs or Law Secretary in State governments. The officer while functioning as Law Secretary, has no judicial duties to perform which would militate against the principles of separation of powers,” he said.
