The Anti-Defection Law, intended to ensure stability, paradoxically incentivises collective disruption. Discuss with reference to parliamentary productivity data.

Q. The Anti-Defection Law, intended to ensure stability, paradoxically incentivises collective disruption. Discuss with reference to parliamentary productivity data. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Tenth Schedule, inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment (1985), was designed to end the "evil of political defections" and secure governmental stability [1]. Yet by binding members to the party whip, it has converted individual conscience into collective party behaviour — including organised disruption of the House.

How the law converts dissent into disruption - Whip-bound voting: A member defying the whip on a vote risks disqualification, so the floor ceases to be a site of persuasion — outcomes are pre-decided by party strength [1]. - Suppression of intra-party debate: PRS notes the law raises the question of whether it suppresses healthy intra-party dissent and prevents members from voicing constituents' concerns against the party line [1]. - Displacement of protest: Denied a meaningful vote, legislators express dissent through the only unpunishable route left — well-rushing, sloganeering and walkouts, coordinated en masse by the party. - Speaker as adjudicator: Disqualification is decided by the Speaker, usually from the ruling party, weakening opposition confidence in neutral remedies [1].

The productivity cost - In the Monsoon Session 2025, roughly two-thirds of planned time was lost to disruptions; Question Hour — the core accountability tool — ran at just 23% in Lok Sabha and 6% in Rajya Sabha [2]. - Disruption directly displaces scrutiny: MPs cannot question ministers, and Bills are passed without effective debate or left pending [3]. - The financial cost is significant — a Lok Sabha discussion paper estimated each minute of Parliament costs the exchequer thousands of rupees [3]. - Article 122 bars judicial review of proceedings, so no external remedy exists; reform must be internal.

Stability purchased by silencing the individual legislator has cost Parliament its deliberative core. The way forward lies in confining the whip to confidence and money bills, shifting disqualification to an independent tribunal, and strengthening committees and Question Hour — restoring the Tenth Schedule's original promise of stable and accountable government.

(~310 words)

Sources: 1. The Anti-Defection Law — Intent and Impact, PRS Legislative Research — 52nd Amendment/Tenth Schedule intent, whip-based suppression of intra-party dissent, Speaker as adjudicator 2. Parliament Functioning in Monsoon Session 2025: Vital Stats, PRS Legislative Research — two-thirds of planned time lost; Question Hour at 23% (LS) and 6% (RS) 3. The Cost of Parliamentary Disruption, PRS Legislative Research — loss of Question Hour scrutiny, Bills passed without debate, per-minute cost to the exchequer