Political labels

 It was indeed a big blow to the National People’s Party (NPP), when both its legislators closed the party’s chapter in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) by leaving NPP and merging with the ruling Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party(NDPP). The NPP had entered the electoral fray for the first time in 2018 and did remarkably well by winning two seats- 13 Arkakong (Mokokchung) and 57 Thonoknyu (Tuensang). The breaking point appeared to have been the unannounced decision of the party organisation to field a candidate for the 26 Aonglenden assembly constituency in Mokokchung. Both the NPP legislators closed the party chapter in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) by joining the NDPP through a merger. It remains to be seen how the NPP organisation would respond to the merger. There are options that the party organisation could take in this regard. Nagaland’s history of ‘merger politics,’ has witnessed a number of political parties, mostly from the state, who have taken the path of merger and then gone into oblivion when their legislators joined the main party in power. It happened after the 2003 assembly election when the Nationalist Democratic Movement (NDM) became extinct after the majority merged with the NPF and the remaining with the Congress. The BJP had also exited from the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in 2009 when its two legislators merged with NPF. Same was the case in 2014 when three out of four of NCP MLAs merged with BJP. Later the lone NCP member who also fulfilled the criteria for evading disqualification by joining NPF. In 2015 all eight Congress MLAs merged with NPF. The ‘merger politics’ is another name for defection but comes with a legal protection under the 91st amendment of the Anti Defection Law.It may be recalled that the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1985 passed the Anti-Defection Law through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. The Tenth Schedule of Indian Constitution is popularly known as the Anti-Defection Act. The law sets the provisions for disqualification of elected members on the grounds of defection to another political party. Initially, the law allowed defections if it involved one-third members , ie. it had provisions regarding exemption from disqualification in case of a ‘split’ in a political party. But undesirably it resulted in mass defections instead of individual defections. The issue of mass defection because of the 1/3rd rule was remedied through the 91st amendment which increased the bar from one third to two third. Thus at least two-thirds of the members of a party have to be in favour of a ‘merger’ for it to possess validity in the eyes of the law. The speaker (Lok Sabha and assemblies) and chairman (Rajya Sabha and legislative councils) have the authority to decide on defection cases filed by the party involved. No court has any jurisdiction. However, the decision can be brought to court after Kihoto Hollohon case of 1992. Despite the best of intentions to curb the habit of defections by the ‘aya rams and gaya rams’ of Indian politics, the Anti Defection Law still needs some tightening. One view is that those who join a ruling party should not hold offices. Even the role of the speaker has also come under court’s scrutiny. All in all, practises of elected members joining another party is at the core of the issue and this needs to be deliberated.