Why blame Speaker, MLAs when loopholes are in the law itself?

In a recent development that has drawn attention in political circles, Goa Assembly Speaker Ramesh Tawadkar dismissed a disqualification petition concerning eight Congress MLAs who defected to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2022. This decision has reignited the conversation about political party mergers, defections, and the legalities surrounding them.
The petition, filed by former Goa Congress chief Girish Chodankar, sought to disqualify MLAs Digambar Kamat, Aleixo Sequeira, Sankalp Amonkar, Michael Lobo, Delilah Lobo, Kedar Naik, Rodolfo Fernandes, and Rajesh Faldesai after their switch to the BJP on September 14, 2022.
A lot has been spoken and written on social media post the Speaker’s ruling. But wait, was the order unexpected?
The Speaker said that he followed the same rule done in the Dominic D’Souza case which was also dismissed.
Now those questioning Tawadkar’s order need to understand the law first. The loopholes have been deliberately kept for legislators to escape punishment and yes Tawadkar, Michael Lobo or Digambar have not made this law.
As per Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, if the “original party” from which a member of House who is defecting can create a merger with another political party, the member won’t be eligible for disqualification on the ground of defection. The merger of the original party will “be deemed to” have taken place if two-thirds of the legislature members of the original party have agreed to the merger, which means that if two-thirds of the representatives of a party defect, they won’t be disqualified.
The problem here lies in the interpretation of the term “original party”.
We need to understand the Tenth Schedule of the law needs to be amended to add more tensile strength against defectors and the Supreme Court has to come up with a robust and unambiguous decision to clear all doubts.
Another issue here is that Tawadkar was the Speaker who had accepted this merger in September 2022, how can he now say it is illegal?
We need to thank him that he has finally given a decision due to the pressure from the Supreme Court, which had asked him to decide by November 4 otherwise the case could have been dragged for another three years.
Tawadkar’s ruling hinged on the legal principle that a lawmaker cannot be disqualified when their original political party merges with another. In cases where a political party merges, elected members retain their seats regardless of their personal stance on the merger. Legal representative Abhijit Gosavi, who advocated for Chodankar, conceded that the Speaker’s ruling was anticipated, asserting, “We expected nothing more.” He emphasized that while the decision confirmed his expectations, it was critical to challenge the interpretation of disqualification laws in the Supreme Court.
Gosavi articulated the position of many in the Congress Party that the merger of the Congress legislature party with the BJP should not absolve the MLAs of responsibility. He stated, “The only silver lining is that after a lot of efforts over the last two years, finally, a decision has come.” His resolve to seek a definitive stance from the Supreme Court on the nuances of disqualification law signifies ongoing tensions in Goa’s political landscape.
In his ruling, Speaker Tawadkar dismissed the assertion that the defecting MLAs were ineligible under the Constitution’s 10th Schedule, which deals with disqualification on grounds of defection. He defended the merger, highlighting that the legislators had formally passed a resolution to merge their party with the BJP, dismissing the notion that such a merger could lead to disqualification. Tawadkar concluded, “I find that there is no disqualification incurred by the respondents in this case, and the petitioner cannot claim their disqualification.”
This ruling raises important questions about political integrity and the nature of party affiliations in Indian politics. The case exemplifies a broader trend where party loyalty appears secondary to the strategic interests of political operatives. Critics argue that such defections undermine the electoral mandate and erode public trust in political institutions.
Chodankar, undeterred by the Speaker’s decision, maintains his intent to pursue the matter further in the Supreme Court, indicating that this issue is far from resolved. The implications of this ruling could lead to significant scrutiny of the defection laws and their application, presenting an essential test for the integrity of political party affiliations in India.
As the situation unfolds, the focus will likely shift to the higher judiciary, where the legal framework surrounding political party mergers and defections may either reinforce or alter the existing dynamics in Goa’s political landscape. The coming months could set important precedents regarding the definition of anti-defection laws and the role of elected representatives in maintaining political accountability.