STRUCTURE:

INTRODUCTION – Few lines about Method of disqualification

BODY – explain the drawbacks of current methods of disqualification

CONCLUDE – Conclude by writing what can be done

Disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) is governed by Article 102 of the Constitution, the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law). While these provisions aim to ensure accountability and uphold democratic integrity, the process has several drawbacks, such as political manipulation, delays, and lack of transparency. Various committee reports, Supreme Court judgments, and real-world incidents highlight these issues.

• The disqualification process is often misused for political gains. The Punchhi Commission noted that Speakers, who are typically affiliated with the ruling party, have discretionary powers in anti-defection cases, leading to biased decisions. For example, in the Rajasthan MLA disqualification case (2020), disqualification notices were issued to opposition members during a political crisis, reflecting possible misuse to weaken the opposition.
• Decisions related to disqualification, including under the Tenth Schedule, are subject to judicial review. This can result in lengthy delays, allowing disqualified MPs to continue holding office while cases remain unresolved. The process of disqualification can be delayed for months, leading to uncertainty. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) recognized that Speakers often take an excessive amount of time to decide on defection cases. This delay undermines the purpose of the anti-defection law and allows members to continue influencing legislative decisions. In Karnataka (2019), the Speaker delayed ruling on disqualification, creating political instability. The S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment emphasized the need for impartiality in disqualification decisions, but frequent judicial intervention is required due to biased decisions.
• Procedural ambiguities, such as what constitutes "voluntarily giving up membership" under the anti-defection law, are often misused. During crucial votes, like in Goa (2017), the Speaker allegedly ignored opposition members, even "turning off the mic" of those trying to raise disqualification points. This reflects how procedural ambiguities can lead to manipulation of the process.
• Decisions related to disqualification, including under the Tenth Schedule, are subject to judicial review. This can result in lengthy delays, allowing disqualified MPs to continue holding office while cases remain unresolved. According to a report by PRS Legislative Research, between 2017 and 2020, over 30 cases of disqualification were pending with Speakers for more than a year, undermining legislative stability. Additionally, the ARC report suggested that political disqualifications often result from factional infighting, rather than genuine violations of the law.
• The term "office of profit" is ambiguously defined, often leading to legal challenges. The lack of clear guidelines creates uncertainty and loopholes for those attempting to bypass disqualification. The term "office of profit" is ambiguously defined, often leading to legal challenges. The lack of clear guidelines creates uncertainty and loopholes for those attempting to bypass disqualification.
• While the anti-defection law according to tenth schedule prevents floor-crossing, it allows significant leeway for party leadership to dictate terms. This reduces individual MP autonomy, potentially discouraging independent voting on key issues. - The Shiv Sena leadership's whip during the 2020 Maharashtra floor test, which forced MLAs to vote in favor of the government under threat of disqualification, exemplifies how the anti-defection law can suppress independent voting, reduce individual MLA autonomy, and allow party leadership to dictate terms, undermining representative democracy.

The disqualification process in India is marred by delays, political manipulation, and a lack of transparency. Recommendations from the Punchhi Commission and ARC to transfer disqualification powers from the Speaker to an independent authority have not yet been implemented. Reforms are needed to ensure that disqualification decisions are made impartially and in a timely manner, ensuring the democratic process remains fair and robust. By implementing these reforms, the disqualification process can become more effective, impartial, and transparent, ultimately strengthening the integrity of parliamentary functioning in India.