1 00:00:01,360 --> 00:00:05,080 From India's largest newsroom, I'm Arun George and this is the 2 00:00:05,080 --> 00:00:19,870 Times of India podcast. Non attendance of the meeting 3 00:00:20,150 --> 00:00:25,310 can act the most be termed as an act of dissent within the party. 4 00:00:25,590 --> 00:00:29,950 If viewed as a form of expression, it would be 5 00:00:30,350 --> 00:00:35,240 protected by freedom of speech and expression, which includes 6 00:00:35,480 --> 00:00:40,160 dissent and is not only an integral part of fundamental 7 00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:44,400 rights under Article 1419 and 21 of the Constitution, but is an 8 00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,120 aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution also. 9 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:51,400 On the 10th of January, the Speaker of the Maharashtra 10 00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:53,920 Assembly, Rahul Narvekar dismissed all the petition. 11 00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:56,440 Shifts in our legislators had moved against each other. 12 00:00:56,840 --> 00:00:59,400 At the heart of the file petitions was the fact that over 13 00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:02,520 40 shifts in our MLAs led by Iknath Shinde aligned with the 14 00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:05,120 BJP. This led to the Udak Thakre LED 15 00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,800 alliance in Maharashtra falling from power and Iknath Chindi 16 00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:10,400 becoming Maharashtras. Chief Minister. 17 00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:13,920 Rahul Narvikar in his order dismissed all the petitions and 18 00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:17,120 disqualified none of the MLAs allied with Iknath Chindi on the 19 00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:20,200 grounds of defection. All the MLAs, irrespective of 20 00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:23,320 whether they were supporting Eknar Chinde or UDA Thakre were 21 00:01:23,320 --> 00:01:24,880 deemed to belong to the same party. 22 00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:28,040 Narvika ruled that MLAs supporting Eknar Chinde, not 23 00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:31,240 attending party meetings and voicing differences of opinion 24 00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:34,480 outside the legislature were matters of the party and 25 00:01:34,480 --> 00:01:37,320 couldn't be seen as acts of dissent or defection. 26 00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:40,560 Whereas some experts would argue that's exactly what's covered by 27 00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,760 Indias anti defection law. For today's episode, my 28 00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:46,240 colleague Sunil Bagheel and Bhavika Jain spoke with two 29 00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:48,840 experts to better understand what this order means for 30 00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:51,840 politics at large, especially because India has an anti 31 00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:54,720 defection law which was passed to prevent elected 32 00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:56,880 representatives from one party switching sides. 33 00:01:57,400 --> 00:02:00,320 Does the Maharashtra case show how the law can be casually 34 00:02:00,320 --> 00:02:03,000 bypassed and that it doesn't have enough teeth to prevent 35 00:02:03,000 --> 00:02:05,880 such defections? PDT Achari is the former 36 00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:09,000 Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat and says he 37 00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:12,040 completely disagrees with the Speaker's ruling in this case. 38 00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:18,920 I don't think it is a very correct kind of ruling, because 39 00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:24,920 here the Speaker has decided which faction is the party. 40 00:02:25,920 --> 00:02:30,440 That is not actually an issue which the Speaker should decide. 41 00:02:30,760 --> 00:02:32,920 That is not a part of the anti defection law. 42 00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,760 That is not to be decided by the Speaker, that is decided only by 43 00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:39,360 the Election Commission. So he has wrongly decided an 44 00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:43,440 issue. Secondly, he has to decide 45 00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:51,080 whether the Ek Nath Shinde group of MPs ML as belonging to the 46 00:02:51,920 --> 00:02:55,560 Shiva Sena party defected from that party. 47 00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:59,880 So he should look at the conduct of these people and then he 48 00:02:59,880 --> 00:03:02,560 should decide. Now he can decide it on the 49 00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:05,120 basis of Supreme Court decisions. 50 00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:08,720 For example, Rajendra Singh Rana case is a case in point. 51 00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:13,560 In that case, you know, the Supreme Court had said, look, if 52 00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:16,880 a ruling party member goes along with the opposition to the 53 00:03:16,880 --> 00:03:20,200 governor and says that the present government should be 54 00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:23,400 dismissed and we are prepared to form an alternative government, 55 00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:27,360 the moment he goes to the governor, the Supreme Court says 56 00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:29,920 that he has actually committed defection. 57 00:03:30,840 --> 00:03:33,240 That means he has voluntarily given up the membership of the 58 00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:36,400 party. PDT Acharya explains the two 59 00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:39,080 grounds on which an elected representative can be 60 00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:42,400 disqualified. As for the anti defection law, 61 00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:45,600 there are two grounds on which a person can be disqualified. 62 00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:49,720 One is that he has voluntarily given up the membership of the 63 00:03:49,720 --> 00:03:52,480 party. Second is that he has defied the 64 00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:54,360 whip and voted against the direction of his. 65 00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:59,440 Party The whip that PDDHIE refers to is a sort of formal 66 00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:02,720 written order issued by a leader in the party telling legislators 67 00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,640 on how to vote on a particular issue or what they should be 68 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,080 doing next. The Shiv Sena, led by Udav 69 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,880 Thakre, accused those allied with Eknath Shindi of doing 70 00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:13,800 exactly that. It's something that even the NCP 71 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:17,160 faction of Sharad Pawar has accused Ajit Pawar and the MLE 72 00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:20,839 supporting him of doing. So the Speaker should have 73 00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:26,720 decided this issue on the basis of this particular fact that 74 00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,240 they broke away from the party, they conspired with the 75 00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:34,480 opposition and then they approached the governor and the 76 00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:38,840 governors told them in As for Rajendra Singh Rama's case, this 77 00:04:38,840 --> 00:04:43,240 is a clear case of defection and the Speaker should have decided 78 00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:46,400 this. In that case of what could be 79 00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:49,560 the solution to the to the situation that has happened? 80 00:04:49,560 --> 00:04:52,920 A reason like Supreme Court has declared certain things illegal, 81 00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:56,240 but the government, not just the Chief Minister, all the 82 00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:58,960 ministers, the government, everything remains in place. 83 00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:01,560 Then what is the solution to such a situation then? 84 00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:06,000 Actually, you know, anti defection law should be 85 00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:10,400 understood in the context in it it was, it was, it was framed by 86 00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:13,920 parliament. There were defections from one 87 00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:18,400 party to the other and there was political instability in many 88 00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:22,680 states because of this unchecked defection and therefore 89 00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:24,240 something needs to be needed to be done. 90 00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:28,240 Of course the anti defection law as it is framed as it exists 91 00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:33,720 today is a very tough law if it is implemented and it needs to 92 00:05:33,720 --> 00:05:35,800 be implemented because that is why the law is there. 93 00:05:36,240 --> 00:05:38,920 And they had done away with the provision of split. 94 00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:43,560 That means they wanted to make it as ruthless as possible. 95 00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:47,880 That basic thing you know we must understand and then you 96 00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:50,000 will understand the logic of this law. 97 00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:54,680 That means anybody who leaves a party who has been elected on a 98 00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,480 particular ticket comes to the legislature and after that 99 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,240 somebody leaves him away and he goes away. 100 00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:06,120 That actually goes against the verdict of the people. 101 00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:08,560 You're thumbing your nose against the people who are 102 00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:12,040 elect, who elected you. That is precisely what the law 103 00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:15,040 wants to, wants to prevent. After all, they have done a 104 00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:18,240 certain thing, and they must face the consequences of that in 105 00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:22,240 terms of the law. The 170th Law Commission report 106 00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:26,760 submitted in 1999, Which he effectively suggested that 107 00:06:26,840 --> 00:06:31,240 defections should be completely disallowed and once a member is 108 00:06:31,240 --> 00:06:34,520 elected on a certain party ticket, he or she should remain 109 00:06:34,520 --> 00:06:37,600 a member of that party and if you want to defect then you 110 00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:40,080 should resign and seek reelection. 111 00:06:40,320 --> 00:06:43,920 What is your opinion on that? Actually the there should be a 112 00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:48,160 simple law that the man should resign if he wants to move 113 00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:52,800 across to another party. Otherwise he will make, he will 114 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:56,440 be making a nonsense of the verdict of the people wealthy, 115 00:06:57,000 --> 00:07:00,160 which he has no right to do. But here that is not how it is. 116 00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,760 You defect, you enjoy the benefit of defection, and then 117 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:09,360 you continue glad this kind of discussion comes, which kind of 118 00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:12,880 protects you. That is not what is intended by 119 00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:17,000 this law. See, intra party disputes are 120 00:07:17,120 --> 00:07:19,800 resolved. Not by defecting from that part. 121 00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:23,120 Intra party disputes are resolved. 122 00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:27,920 There should be some mechanism in every party to resolve the 123 00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:33,480 intra party disputes, but if it goes to the extent of defecting 124 00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:35,320 then it becomes a different issue. 125 00:07:36,320 --> 00:07:38,360 It no longer remains an intra party dispute. 126 00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:44,000 Also, Sir, with this verdict, if I were a part of a, if I were 127 00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:47,360 leading a small political party somewhere in other parts of the 128 00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:49,080 country, I would really feel threatened. 129 00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:52,920 Because you know that. Really allows a large part of my 130 00:07:53,480 --> 00:07:59,680 legislators to be easily broken off and taken to the two bigger 131 00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:03,800 parties. Certainly it has implications. 132 00:08:04,320 --> 00:08:10,760 So that is why I'm saying that the anti defection law should be 133 00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:15,640 implemented in liter and spirit by the speaker and the speaker 134 00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:18,280 doesn't do that. Then the court should step in 135 00:08:19,160 --> 00:08:23,760 and they should set right things so that people obey the law. 136 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:29,160 It seems that the political fraternity, so to speak, has 137 00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:33,400 found a way around the law that is on the books as of now. 138 00:08:33,840 --> 00:08:38,080 Do you see the political will in changing the law again to make 139 00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:40,919 defections completely impossible? 140 00:08:42,480 --> 00:08:46,120 Well, that depends on the political class, how they look 141 00:08:46,120 --> 00:08:51,120 at it and all that. After all, a law is brought by 142 00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:53,280 the ruling party, whichever party it is. 143 00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:59,040 So they will bring a law which will suit their interest 144 00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:03,760 basically and amendments are also brought by them to suit 145 00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:06,480 their interest. Let's not get away from that 146 00:09:06,680 --> 00:09:10,400 because that is the reality. But so far as the anti 147 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:15,080 deflection law was concerned, there was a consensus among the 148 00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:19,920 entire political spectrum. There was a consensus that we 149 00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:21,840 must have a law to deal with this issue. 150 00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:24,800 OK? It can cut both ways. 151 00:09:24,920 --> 00:09:28,360 It can affect any part and today's ruling party may be at 152 00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:32,400 the receiving end tomorrow. So this can happen to any 153 00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:34,920 political part. That is why there was a 154 00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:38,960 consensus and that consensus cannot be done away with. 155 00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,600 And the anti deflection law is the product of that kind of 156 00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,280 consensus. After all, why is that provision 157 00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:50,120 made in the law which says that a member shall be deemed to 158 00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:52,520 belong to the party which set him up as a candidate? 159 00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:57,800 But in my view, that is the key. That is the key to resolving 160 00:09:57,800 --> 00:10:01,040 this problem. Speaker has to merely see which 161 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:04,360 party they belong to at the time of defection. 162 00:10:04,680 --> 00:10:07,720 They belong to this party, a party which set them up as 163 00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:11,240 candidates in the election. See how easy it is to decide 164 00:10:11,240 --> 00:10:21,040 that issue. But there's another point of 165 00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:24,400 view that the anti defection law as it stands doesn't cover cases 166 00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:27,600 like the shifts in our NCP because the defectors don't 167 00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:30,960 claim to have left the party. Sunil Bagheel and Bhavika Jain 168 00:10:31,200 --> 00:10:34,000 spoke with Shihari Ani, who is the former Advocate General of 169 00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:36,240 Maharashtra. He doesn't believe there's 170 00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:38,240 anything wrong with the Maharashtra speaker's order. 171 00:10:39,680 --> 00:10:47,240 In my view, the speaker passed an order that was completely 172 00:10:47,400 --> 00:10:51,640 within the four corners of what the Supreme Court had expected 173 00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:55,040 him to do. Obviously, the Uddhav Thakri 174 00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:59,560 side is alleging bias on the part of the speaker and some of 175 00:10:59,560 --> 00:11:02,320 it is clearly reflected and observed in the Supreme Court 176 00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:07,000 judgment of May 2022. What's your opinion about? 177 00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:12,200 There is a legal concept. It's called official bias. 178 00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:15,440 It is based on an assumption that if you belong to a 179 00:11:15,440 --> 00:11:19,360 particular group or an office, you exhibit the bias of that 180 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:21,680 office. I do not say this concept 181 00:11:21,680 --> 00:11:25,360 applies 100% here, but it is possible to argue that you 182 00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:29,120 belong to the BJP. So you are exhibiting a bias in 183 00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:32,560 favor of the BJP. If you are alleging malice, if 184 00:11:32,560 --> 00:11:37,000 you are alleging that the action is motivated by considerations 185 00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:41,720 other than the ones that should weigh, the law clearly requires 186 00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:43,440 that you make out the reasons for that. 187 00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:47,400 And the only reason I have come to so far is #1. 188 00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:51,040 You belong to the BJP, therefore you must be going in the 189 00:11:51,040 --> 00:11:53,600 direction BJP likes to go. And #2. 190 00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:57,680 This is as of yesterday, you visited the Chief Minister a 191 00:11:57,680 --> 00:11:59,720 couple of times. Maybe. 192 00:11:59,720 --> 00:12:02,160 Maybe it would have been better if we had not visited him. 193 00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:08,320 But I am not going to be able to establish malice or bias by such 194 00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:10,240 acts. They will have to establish that 195 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:14,400 the speaker did it for ulterior motives, and merely saying so is 196 00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:19,000 not enough. So the NCP disqualification 197 00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:22,200 matter is under hearing and the first hearing has happened. 198 00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:26,160 Does this mean that you know it is headed towards a foregone 199 00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:29,520 conclusion? It's not headed to a foregone 200 00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:33,840 conclusion for the reason that the foregone conclusion is based 201 00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:37,480 not only on the directions that the Supreme Court has given, but 202 00:12:37,480 --> 00:12:40,120 also on the evidence that emerged from the directions. 203 00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:45,240 If, for instance, in the matters of disobedience of VIP, the 204 00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:50,120 complainant can show that the VIP was properly issued, then 205 00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:54,280 the conclusions reached in the Shinde Takre matters will not 206 00:12:54,280 --> 00:12:56,640 apply. If, for instance, the party's 207 00:12:56,640 --> 00:13:02,200 behavior is shown to be properly justified under the party 208 00:13:02,200 --> 00:13:06,480 constitution, then the Shinde Thackeray judgment won't apply. 209 00:13:06,760 --> 00:13:11,480 So it is not a precedent to the facts of the case, It is a 210 00:13:11,480 --> 00:13:14,600 precedent for the law that it seeks to define. 211 00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:19,600 And in any case, judgments of the speaker do not have 212 00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:22,720 precedential value. So a judgment of this speaker 213 00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:25,800 does not bind, let us say, the speaker in Madhya Pradesh, 214 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,040 although it will be read by the speaker in Madhya Pradesh with 215 00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:32,760 great interest. You can have the same backdrop 216 00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:37,040 of law but with totally different results emerging from 217 00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:38,520 it. That's possible. 218 00:13:39,320 --> 00:13:41,480 A major factor that the Maharashtra speakers verdict 219 00:13:41,480 --> 00:13:43,400 relied on was the constitution of the party. 220 00:13:43,680 --> 00:13:47,120 While the Shiv Sena had passed one in 2018, it wasn't something 221 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:48,760 that was submitted to the Election Commission. 222 00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:52,400 It turned out Sri Haryani says the Speaker was told to rely on 223 00:13:52,400 --> 00:13:55,120 the official constitution filed before the Election Commission. 224 00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:58,240 Therefore he went by the earlier version of the constitution 225 00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:00,640 which in turn went against Udal Thakrin. 226 00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:03,800 But, and he says that parties also need to have better methods 227 00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:06,920 of dealing with intra party problems rather than expecting 228 00:14:06,920 --> 00:14:08,760 the anti defection law to sort them out. 229 00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:13,760 I think the political parties was first of all introspect. 230 00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:19,400 They cannot be bringing all such matters serious or frivolous 231 00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:22,520 under the tense schedule before the Speaker. 232 00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:26,480 Unless they're very serious that this is a defection and must be 233 00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:29,920 treated as such. So it it should not be a means 234 00:14:29,920 --> 00:14:32,280 for them to settle their own personal problems. 235 00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:36,560 Don't try to make your party governance matters matters of 236 00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:38,600 the 10 schedule. Deal with it where you're 237 00:14:38,600 --> 00:14:41,120 supposed to deal with it. This is going to be a very 238 00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:46,760 prominent feature of the NCP matter that's coming up so far. 239 00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:50,920 Surprisingly, Mr. Sharad Pawar has shown great restraint at 240 00:14:50,920 --> 00:14:54,720 bringing a focus on to how the problem ought to be viewed. 241 00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:58,880 It does not display it in this fashion as the shus energy, but 242 00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:01,400 that does not necessarily stop it from assuming that 243 00:15:01,400 --> 00:15:03,880 proportion. It might, but then is it a 244 00:15:03,880 --> 00:15:07,840 descent within the party, or is it a descent in which 245 00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:11,240 disqualification must follow? Is one of the things that 246 00:15:11,240 --> 00:15:13,880 features. I would say the parties must 247 00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:17,320 examine their constitutions to see if there are methods by 248 00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:20,440 which they can solve this, rather than run around trying to 249 00:15:20,440 --> 00:15:24,160 say let us go to the 10 schedule and seek a solution because 250 00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:27,440 that's not what the 10 schedule is meant to do and that's not 251 00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:31,040 what it should be used for. The third thing is the parties 252 00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:35,600 now actually have a very clear guideline, not only in the 253 00:15:35,600 --> 00:15:38,240 speakers judgment but in the Supreme Court's directives. 254 00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:40,920 But these are the things that need to be looked at. 255 00:15:41,400 --> 00:15:44,720 Examine them for yourself. Talk to a competent lawyer, 256 00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:46,320 He'll tell you what they're supposed to mean. 257 00:15:46,600 --> 00:15:50,120 Find out if you have evidence to support all this, then decide on 258 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:51,840 what course of action you want to take I. 259 00:15:53,240 --> 00:15:55,760 Just want to bring your attention to the 170 years Law 260 00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:59,040 Commission report of 1999 on the same aspect. 261 00:15:59,240 --> 00:16:02,320 There should be no defection once you have be, once you're 262 00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:07,520 elected under a party's name. I would, but I have a small 263 00:16:07,520 --> 00:16:11,440 caveat to that. What happens if I'm elected by 264 00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:14,520 my constituency on a particular view? 265 00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:21,480 Let us say that I have been elected to demand, let us say I 266 00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:26,160 am from Vidarbha to demand that I will go in the Parliament and 267 00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:30,200 fight to bring irrigation to my area. 268 00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:32,200 And I go there and I don't do it. 269 00:16:32,720 --> 00:16:38,480 I am acting against my people, but nobody can question me for 270 00:16:38,480 --> 00:16:41,520 doing that. But supposing the party to which 271 00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:46,400 I belong says that looking to the condition of Maharashtra, we 272 00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:52,200 feel that the budget only allows us to develop irrigation in 273 00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:54,960 western Maharashtra. And whether irrigation will not 274 00:16:54,960 --> 00:16:58,320 be developed. And I, as a member of the party, 275 00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:01,240 I'm told you, vote on a whip to support this. 276 00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:04,160 Am I in conscience bound to obey such a whip? 277 00:17:04,560 --> 00:17:08,400 Or will I go against my party, stand with my electoral public 278 00:17:08,400 --> 00:17:12,000 to say no, I have been elected on this mandate and I will not 279 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:13,720 be able to deviate from this mandate. 280 00:17:14,079 --> 00:17:17,720 Now, if the law were to so complain that I must obey my 281 00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:20,960 party, then my option would be very limited. 282 00:17:21,280 --> 00:17:24,359 I will have to either go with the party or I have to resign 283 00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:27,160 and say sorry, I can't go with you before you throw me out. 284 00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:28,119 I'm getting out. I'm not. 285 00:17:28,359 --> 00:17:33,120 I was never elected for this. Fortunately or unfortunately, 286 00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:37,520 such sharp questions do not confront our elected 287 00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:40,880 representative, and most questions which confront them 288 00:17:41,120 --> 00:17:46,000 are usually of such minor nature and unfortunately raised by such 289 00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:51,440 weak electorate population, that some kind of a makeshift answer 290 00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:54,320 is good enough to take care of things. 291 00:17:55,080 --> 00:17:58,200 Like I say, they do not need to perform surgery, a Band-Aid 292 00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:00,200 takes care of whatever the problem is. 293 00:18:00,560 --> 00:18:04,680 And yet, if such a confrontation were to occur, and we had a law 294 00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:07,800 which said you vote against your party, you're done. 295 00:18:08,360 --> 00:18:10,800 That would be the law. It would be a good thing. 296 00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:13,360 If such a law is there, people won't vote against the party. 297 00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:16,960 It would be a bad thing because they may not be doing justice to 298 00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:19,520 their electorate representative. There are two views. 299 00:18:20,680 --> 00:18:24,920 From a voters point of view, there is one person who sort of 300 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:27,680 moves out of a party with 39 more people. 301 00:18:28,120 --> 00:18:30,960 We are still not calling it defection, we are still calling 302 00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:36,160 it as intra party descent. Then what would amount to 303 00:18:36,160 --> 00:18:39,280 defection? Please remember that there was a 304 00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:43,080 clause 3 to the 10th schedule which had said that if so many 305 00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,840 percent of people go out, that would be permissible. 306 00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:49,480 If it is not that, then it's not permissible. 307 00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:52,600 So in one case it would not be defection and in the other case 308 00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:55,080 it would be a defection. They removed that. 309 00:18:55,760 --> 00:19:00,480 With that gone, the 10th schedule as it stands today, to 310 00:19:00,480 --> 00:19:04,400 my mind does not cover situations like the current one. 311 00:19:04,920 --> 00:19:08,120 It can cover situations of individual acts of defect 312 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:10,400 defection. It would cover situations where 313 00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:13,720 even a group of people vote against the VIP, for instance. 314 00:19:14,000 --> 00:19:17,000 But voting against the VIP is also not a complete 315 00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:21,760 disqualification method because you are allowed to rethink and 316 00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:24,120 the man can be brought back in saying, all right, you voted, 317 00:19:24,320 --> 00:19:26,320 don't do it again. Next time it will be bad for 318 00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:29,640 you. So that situation apart, the 319 00:19:29,640 --> 00:19:33,320 tense schedule as it stands today does not, in my mind, 320 00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:42,760 reflect a power which can deal with a situation of mass loss of 321 00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:44,640 people from one side to the other. 322 00:19:44,880 --> 00:19:48,240 It deals with individual or at best small groups. 323 00:19:49,400 --> 00:19:51,800 Given speakers of legislative bodies don't seem to rule 324 00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:54,640 against the governments of the day, irrespective of the methods 325 00:19:54,640 --> 00:19:58,280 by which they were formed, one suggestion was to create neutral 326 00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:01,160 bodies to decide on cases like that witnessed in Maharashtra. 327 00:20:01,600 --> 00:20:03,960 Basically, take elected representatives out of the 328 00:20:03,960 --> 00:20:07,160 process of deciding whether a politician has defected or not. 329 00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:10,760 Sunil Bagheel asked PDTHRE if it's time to consider that 330 00:20:10,760 --> 00:20:14,920 suggestion seriously. Do you think it is time that 331 00:20:14,920 --> 00:20:19,240 this this jurisdiction to decide on disqualification petitions is 332 00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:22,240 handed over to a neutral body, as suggested by one of the 333 00:20:22,800 --> 00:20:25,160 judgments cited by Justice Rwinton Arman's bench in a 334 00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:29,480 similar case? Well, that can be tried because 335 00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:33,280 there is nothing sacrosanct about the Speaker deciding this 336 00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:35,480 issue. Speaker is a political person. 337 00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:39,520 You know, initially when the Speaker was brought in as a 338 00:20:39,520 --> 00:20:43,480 tribunal here, you know, the understanding was this is a 339 00:20:43,600 --> 00:20:46,880 matter, you know, which concerns the House and therefore maybe 340 00:20:46,880 --> 00:20:49,360 Speaker is the right person to decide this issue. 341 00:20:49,360 --> 00:20:53,360 That was the perception of the lawmakers in the beginning. 342 00:20:54,000 --> 00:20:57,920 But later on we have had certain experience and on the basis of 343 00:20:57,920 --> 00:21:00,480 that people have started saying that certainly this matter 344 00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:04,400 should be given to a neutral authority to train in judicial 345 00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:09,520 matters because after all it's a semi judicial decision. 346 00:21:09,800 --> 00:21:13,320 So therefore people who have that kind of a training should 347 00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:16,160 do this. But then the political class has 348 00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:19,160 to take a call on that. After all, it is they who will 349 00:21:19,160 --> 00:21:21,960 bring the law and get it passed by Parliament. 350 00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:25,800 Bhavika Jain also asks she Haryani about the Maharashtra 351 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:29,240 speaker's order and whether such defections amount to the voter 352 00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:32,720 being cheated given they vote for one person and then see them 353 00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:34,480 switch sides as per their convenience. 354 00:21:35,880 --> 00:21:39,920 I find that you know when you say that a politician should not 355 00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:43,680 fall prey to the allurement of another political party for the 356 00:21:43,680 --> 00:21:47,920 gains of power, pretty idealistic in in the situation 357 00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:49,320 or in the world that we are today. 358 00:21:49,880 --> 00:21:54,960 Ultimately, putting the onus on listening to his conscience is 359 00:21:54,960 --> 00:21:58,360 too optimistic from the point of view of a voter. 360 00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:03,080 We can cite as many articles like amendments and Constitution 361 00:22:03,080 --> 00:22:06,160 amendments that you like. Isn't it the voter who is 362 00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:10,360 ultimately, you know, the cheated party in in any such 363 00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:11,720 case. Badly cheated. 364 00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:15,240 Cheated is a good word. Just remember this that the 365 00:22:15,240 --> 00:22:19,480 politician truly believes that the moment the voter has voted 366 00:22:19,480 --> 00:22:24,160 for him, his duty towards the voter is irrelevant. 367 00:22:25,400 --> 00:22:28,440 Also, the politicians, at least nowadays, truly believe that 368 00:22:28,440 --> 00:22:31,920 what they think is of importance is what is of importance to the 369 00:22:31,920 --> 00:22:34,640 voter when it really is not. I'm going to tell you something 370 00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:38,840 else which I believe in, and this is again, very cynical, and 371 00:22:38,840 --> 00:22:41,560 it's as a result of my having lived much longer than most 372 00:22:41,560 --> 00:22:44,720 people. We are basically a dishonest 373 00:22:44,720 --> 00:22:48,400 people, and that includes the voter as well. 374 00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:51,240 He doesn't mind this kind of stuff happening. 375 00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:54,560 Why do you let the same man get stand up again and be elected on 376 00:22:54,560 --> 00:22:56,600 your ticket? Why didn't you tell him last 377 00:22:56,600 --> 00:22:59,840 time? Please sit at home. 378 00:22:59,840 --> 00:23:01,600 We are not voting. No, we won't do that. 379 00:23:02,360 --> 00:23:05,560 Our voter still votes on considerations which are 380 00:23:05,560 --> 00:23:08,720 completely extraneous to why he's supposed to vote. 381 00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:13,400 We are democracy because we follow the pattern of voting not 382 00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:15,960 for the intent of what democracies were created. 383 00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:25,480 For Today's episode was produced by Jayaraj Singh and Anuja 384 00:23:25,480 --> 00:23:27,840 Singh. For a daily spotlight on people, 385 00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:30,680 ideas and stories that matter, subscribe to us. 386 00:23:30,960 --> 00:23:35,440 We're available on TOI plus Spotify, Apple, Google Podcasts, 387 00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:37,440 and all other platforms of your choice. 388 00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:42,680 For any new steps, e-mail us at toipodcast at timesinternet dot 389 00:23:42,680 --> 00:23:42,960 in.