बेबाक · Editorial
ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಒಂದು ವಿಲೀನಃ ಪಕ್ಷಾಂತರ ವಿರೋಧಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಅದರ ವಿಲೀನ ಮಾರ್ಗವನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸುತ್ತದೆ.
ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ಲೋಕಸಭಾ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ನ್ಯಾಷನಲಿಸ್ಟ್ ಸಿಟಿಜನ್ ಪಾರ್ಟಿ ಆಫ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾದೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಿಲೀನಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, ಅನರ್ಹತೆಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೀರಿಸಬಹುದೇ ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಚಿತ ಕಳವಳವನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿದೆ.
ತಂತ್ರಗಾರಿಕೆ
ತೃಣಮೂಲ ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಟಿಕೆಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯಾದ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ಲೋಕಸಭಾ ಸಂಸದರು ಸ್ಪೀಕರ್ ಓಂ ಬಿರ್ಲಾ ಅವರನ್ನು ಭೇಟಿಯಾಗಿ, ತಾವು ತೃಣಮೂಲ ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಪಕ್ಷದೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಿಲೀನಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಘೋಷಿಸಿದರು.
Form against purpose
The anti-defection framework is meant to curb opportunistic switching while leaving room for lawful political realignment. Here, form and purpose pull sharply apart. The merger may allow the bloc to vote in the Lok Sabha before any ruling on disqualification. That matters because the Centre may bring the Delimitation Bill as early as the monsoon session of Parliament, and this bloc has promised support to the NDA. Adjudication, in other words, may trail the very votes it is meant to govern. When the remedy arrives only after a decisive division is recorded, the law's protection becomes ornamental. A safeguard that cannot act in time is not a safeguard; it is a formality.
Two honest readings
Both sides deserve their strongest case. Those who defend the move can argue, fairly, that a registered merger is a lawful route, that elected members are not the property of the party that fielded them, and that a democracy cannot criminalise every act of dissent or every change of conviction. A law that punishes conscience would be worse than the disease. The contrary case is equally serious. A mandate is given to a candidate and a platform together; a merger that preserves voting strength before a disqualification ruling risks converting that mandate into a personal asset. The TMC's charge of betrayal, however partisan, points at a real question. The issue is not which faction is wronged, but whether the voter's instruction survives the manoeuvre.
The telling specifics
The specifics sharpen the discomfort. The Nationalist Citizen Party of India drew attention earlier for its 'Reject Political Turncoats' campaign in the Tripura polls; it is now the party that 20 rebel TMC MPs have joined. Within the wider formation, the realignment looks less than organic: Lok Sabha MPs backed the merger with the regional party, while Bengal MLAs said they had 'no idea' about such a step. And the clock matters. With the monsoon session due in July and a Delimitation Bill possibly on its agenda, the timing invites scrutiny. None of this, by itself, settles the legal question. All of it tests the spirit the law was written to protect.
A contrasting standard
Set against this, a recent Supreme Court order shows what accountability can look like. Hearing a dispute over land in Haryana — more than 1,500 acres acquired nearly four decades ago at Panchkula for Sectors 24 to 28, with compensation later increased by various authorities — the Court held that no government, and no One-Time Settlement deal, can curtail a citizen's right to move court. The principle is plain: convenience, even when dressed as settlement, cannot extinguish a citizen's right to seek judicial remedy. Elected members asking the system to record a convenient merger before it can judge them might weigh that standard. Institutions that hold the State to its duty are entitled to ask the political class to hold itself to the same line.
Close the door
The way forward is not to outlaw dissent but to end the delay that makes the route profitable. First, fix a firm, short deadline within which disqualification petitions must be decided, so that no member votes on a major Bill while the question of their own standing hangs unresolved. Second, move that adjudication out of the Speaker's office — an office rarely free of the very contest it must judge — to an independent tribunal under a constitutional authority. Third, tighten the merger exception so that it recognises only realignments that can be shown to be genuine, not those announced on the eve of a decisive vote. A law meant to check defection cannot be allowed to reward it through the side door of a convenient merger. Closing that door is reform, not revenge.
ಪಕ್ಷಾಂತರವನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸುವ ಕಾನೂನನ್ನು ಅನುಕೂಲಕರ ವಿಲೀನದ ಪಕ್ಕದ ಬಾಗಿಲಿನ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ್ರತಿಫಲ ನೀಡಲು ಅನುಮತಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
At stake is whether voters’ mandate and equal political voice can be protected when a merger route may let representatives vote before disqualification questions are decided.
Pre-Vote Defection Ruling Rule
Parliament should amend the Tenth Schedule procedure and Lok Sabha Rules to require immediate public disclosure of any merger request and a reasoned Speaker’s ruling on interim voting status before the bloc participates in any vote affected by the pending defection question. For Bills touching representation, such as delimitation, the rule should require the disqualification or merger issue to be decided before the division is recorded, so procedure cannot outrun the voter’s mandate.
ನಿಮ್ಮ ಸಾಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು
ಈ ಕಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂವಿಧಾನವು ಏನು ಭರವಸೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ?Superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in an independent Election Commission of India.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen aged 18 or above has the right to vote, regardless of wealth, status, gender or education.
ConstitutionalEvery citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression — including a free press and the right to know — subject only to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
Fundamental RightThe State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Like must be treated alike; the law cannot be arbitrary.
Fundamental RightWhat this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
ಚಳವಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳಿ.
ಒಂದು ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ನಿರ್ಭೀತರ ಸಂಪಾದಕೀಯ-ನಿಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಸಾಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ ಕೋರಿಕೆ.
An editorial is the considered opinion of The Mudda desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions and actors; we do not endorse or attack any political party. "The Mudda's Ask" is a citizen's good-faith policy proposal, grounded in the Constitution — not the platform of any party. Translations are faithful — no fact is added in any language. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →