( 1 ) I have had the privilege of going through the judgement of Honble the chief Justice expressing his views elaborately and illustratively on the issues involved but find myself unable with great respect, to subscribe with the analysis done and findings arrived at and consequently with the outcome of the judgement.

( 2 ) I have also gone through the judgement prepared by Honble Jagdish bhalla, J and I find myself in agreement with the reasoning given by him and the conclusions arrived at and while supporting his view, I pronounce on the issues involved and the controversy raised, as under:

( 3 ) UNFRET and unmoved by the electorates concern and the peoples cry that the member that they elect should adhere to the policies and programmes as propagated through their partys manifesto during elections and that they voted for a party in whose political, economic and social philosophy they have faith, the elected Members change their allegiance and loyalty very often, and they go in the camp of a rival political party completely ignoring the wish of their own constituency members. May be at times there is honest and ideological dissension leading to defection in a large scale and at times it may only be lure of office or money or other consideration which would prompt the elected member to part ways with his original political party from which he was elected and to support the other party. Voluntarily leaving the original political party from which the member has been elected to any House of parliament or Assembly is known as floor crossing i. e. defection. If an elected member crosses floor with less than 1/3rd members of his legislature party in the House, he or all such members would incur disqualification and would stand disqualified from being the members of the Legislative Assembly for the remaining term of the House and can only come back on a fresh vote but in case a member crosses the floor with at least 1/3rd members of his legislature party or more by following the prescription given in Para 3 of the tenth Schedule, the disqualification of defection would not stick to him.

( 4 ) IN the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others,1992 Supp (2)SCC 651, while deciding the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule introduced by the Constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act, 1985, the supreme Court took note of certain extracts of the report of the Committee known as "committee on Defections". In its report dated January 7,1969, after giving the figures of defections in the recent past, the Committee observed " The other disturbing features of this phenomenon were: multiple acts of defections by the same person or set of persons (Haryana affording a conspicuous example); few resignations of the membership of the legislature or explanations by the individual defectors, indifference on the part of the defectors to political proprieties, constituency preference or public opinion and the belief held by the people and expressed in the press that corruption and bribery were behind some of these defections. "the Supreme Court also took note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which was adopted as the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, which said "the evil of the political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles, which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the President to Parliament that the government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance. "

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court observed:"on the one hand there is the real and imminent threat to the very fabric of the Indian democracy posed by certain levels of political behaviour conspicuous by their utter and total disregard of well recognised political proprieties and morality. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document