The scenes enacted on the lawns of Raj Bhavan in Jaipur, the Manesar resort in Haryana and locations in Delhi are the most grotesque picture of the state of democracy in the country. The health of our democracy is affected by a virus that is many times more virulent than the deadly coronavirus which has not only India, but the entire world going down on their knees.

While refusing the Speaker’s plea, the bench wondered whether elected representatives did not have the right to question their party.

“The voice of dissent cannot be suppressed in a democracy. After all, they all had been elected by the people. Can they not express their dissent? They ought to raise their voice within the party. Issue is, whether voice of dissent can be shut down,” the court observed.

The most obnoxious part of the current system in relation to this vital question is that the authenticity of a stand or an idea is based on numbers rather than the quality of the idea or a position. So, any aberration becomes justifiable if backed by a certain number of legislators, but any genuine idea falls flat if not accompanied by the required number. There cannot be a more ridiculous way of evaluating an idea.

In fact, the law governing party whip, as it exists today, makes parliament and state assemblies irrelevant, as the policy decisions are made at party headquarters. In principle, this takes away legislative onus from the elected houses of people’s representatives and puts it in the hands of party bosses as a legislator does not have the power to vote according to his or her conscience, even when the party decision is most repugnant to fairness. This is what our democracy has been reduced to.

It is quite natural that things are what they are today. The current anti-defection law, the key tool of which is the whip, has its basis on a sense of insecurity rather than confidence or conviction. It was enacted to escape an uncomfortable situation for the ruling party, suffering the fear of dissent.

Earlier, the provisions of the anti-defection law were being applied to a member’s conduct in the House, especially in the event of such member violating the party whip. The surmise was that such violation amounted to the member voluntarily giving up membership if he or she votes contrary to any direction issued by the party or its authorised person, unless preceded by prior approval of the party.

But the peculiarities of Sachin Pilot’s case make the stricture applicable to a member’s conduct outside the House as well. In the instant case, it was the failure of the rebel leader and his flock of MLAs to attend a party meeting.

“They didn’t attend party meeting. They are indulging in anti-party activities. They gave interviews that they wanted a floor test. They are in a hotel in Haryana, incommunicado,” counsel for the Speaker Kapil Sibal told the court. This even as he acknowledged that no whip had been issued to the MLAs. “It’s about a lot more than not attending a meeting; it’s about their anti-party activities,” Sibal argued.

This is what prompted the court to bring in the right to dissent. “While remaining in party can they not raise their voice? Else they will be disqualified? By that submission, party members cannot raise their own voice against their own party?” Justice Mishra asked Sibal.

The concept of whip and the anti-defection law cut at the very root of democracy and dissent. It negates the thousands of crore of rupees spent on the conduct of parliament and other legislatures, because in the end it is the man who issues the whip who controls voting. This makes a strong case for formally transferring the right to legislate to party offices as it is the latter that decide matters any way. It will at least save a lot of money for the country.

If a party leadership does not inspire its legislators to play ball, let it be so. We cannot kill democracy for the sake of protecting inept party leaderships that cannot keep their flock together through the soundness of their programmes and policies. (IPA Service)