91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 represents a significant shift in India’s political landscape. It was brought into force on 7 July 2004 with the primary aim of curbing political defections, limiting the size of the Council of Ministers, and improving the efficiency of governance. This article will explore the background, provisions, impact, challenges, and criticisms of the Act, while also considering its role in India’s democratic framework.

What is 91st Amendment Act? 

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 is a significant reform aimed at curbing political defections and limiting the size of the Council of Ministers in India. Enacted on 7 July 2004, the Act introduced provisions to cap the number of ministers at 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly. 

It also disqualified defecting legislators from holding ministerial or remunerative political posts until re-elected. The Amendment abolished the “one-third split” provision in the Tenth Schedule, which previously allowed defections without consequences. 

The Act aimed to reduce political instability, ensure efficient governance, and promote accountability in the political system, though it faced implementation challenges related to delays and procedural loopholes.

Need for the 91st Amendment

India’s political system, especially in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, was plagued by instability due to the rampant phenomenon of political defections. Legislators frequently switched parties, often to secure ministerial positions, which led to collapsing governments and rising corruption. Additionally, jumbo cabinets with excessively large numbers of ministers put an immense strain on the public exchequer and impeded effective governance.

The 91st Amendment Act sought to address these issues by introducing mechanisms that would curtail defections and control the size of the cabinet. The Act aimed to foster stability, prevent corruption, and ensure that the government remained more accountable and efficient.

Political Instability and Defections

Before the enactment of the 91st Amendment, the Indian political landscape was marked by frequent changes in party allegiances, particularly during coalition governments. Political defections became commonplace, with legislators changing parties for personal or material gain, rather than on the basis of ideological shifts. The defection of a few members could lead to the collapse of an entire government, resulting in an unstable political environment.

Furthermore, large cabinets, often called jumbo cabinets, were a major issue. Ministers were appointed not necessarily based on their competence but rather on political considerations. This practice burdened the state’s resources, leading to inefficient governance.

Several reports and committees, such as the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), Haleem Committee (1998), and the 170th Law Commission Report (1999), had recommended reforms to tackle political instability caused by defections. These recommendations culminated in the 91st Amendment Act.

Key Provisions of the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act

The 91st Amendment brought about significant changes in India’s constitutional framework, particularly regarding the size of the Cabinet and the prevention of defections. The following are the key provisions introduced by the Act:

Restriction on the Size of the Council of Ministers (Article 75 and Article 164)

• Article 75(1A): This clause states that the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers at the Union level, shall not exceed 15% of the total members of the Lok Sabha.
  
• Article 164(1A): Similarly, the total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers at the State level, shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of the state. However, it also stipulates a minimum of 12 ministers for any state and allows the President to bring the number down to the specified limit within six months if the existing cabinet exceeds the prescribed limit.

These provisions aim to streamline government functioning and reduce financial burden by limiting the number of ministers appointed.

Disqualification of Defectors (Article 75(1B) and Article 164(1B))

• Article 75(1B): A member of either House of Parliament who is disqualified for defection under the Tenth Schedule will also be ineligible for ministerial positions until they are re-elected. This provision seeks to prevent defections by ensuring that defectors do not benefit from such actions through ministerial appointments.
  
• Article 164(1B): Similarly, a member of a Legislative Assembly or any state legislature who is disqualified due to defection is barred from becoming a minister for the duration of their disqualification.

This aims to ensure that legislators who switch parties cannot hold important political positions and benefit from their defections.

Remunerative Political Offices (Article 361B)

• Article 361B: This article introduced the provision that a legislator who has been disqualified for defection under the Tenth Schedule will also be ineligible to hold any remunerative political post (such as party office-bearer or committee chair). This further discourages the practice of defection by removing the incentives that defectors might otherwise have.

Revisions to the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

The Tenth Schedule deals with the issue of defections and the process of disqualification. The 91st Amendment made the following changes:

• Omission of the “One-Third Split” Provision: The Act abolished the provision that allowed legislators to defect without disqualification if one-third of a party’s members agreed to a split. This provision had been widely exploited by defectors to escape disqualification.
  
• Revisions to Paragraphs: The law now applies stricter rules regarding the disqualification of defectors, reducing loopholes that previously allowed legislators to defect without facing consequences.

Implementation of the 91st Amendment Act

The 91st Amendment Act was brought into force on 1 January 2004, with 7 July 2004 marking the full notification and enforcement of the Act. This meant that political parties, both at the Union and State levels, had to comply with the new rules on cabinet size and defection-related disqualification.

• President and Governors were responsible for ensuring that the Act’s provisions were enforced across the country. In states where the existing Council of Ministers exceeded the prescribed limit, they were required to reduce the number of ministers within six months.

Despite the constitutional mandates, the implementation of these provisions faced challenges. Political resistance and the reluctance of ruling parties to downsize their cabinets were common, with many states delaying the process.

Impact of the 91st Amendment Act

The 91st Amendment Act had a considerable impact on the Indian political system, both at the Union and State levels.

Reducing Cabinet Bloat and Improving Efficiency

One of the primary objectives of the Act was to reduce the size of the Council of Ministers. By capping the number of ministers at 15% of the total membership of the Lok Sabha or the Legislative Assembly, the Act helped streamline the functioning of the government. Smaller cabinets lead to more focused governance and better decision-making. Additionally, the reduction in the number of ministers also helped the government reduce its financial burden on public funds.

Discouraging Political Defections

The amendments introduced by the Act discouraged legislators from defecting for personal or political gain. The provision that defectors would be disqualified from holding ministerial positions and remunerative political posts ensured that politicians could not easily exploit defections to secure power. The abolishment of the “one-third split” provision in the Tenth Schedule further restricted defections, leading to greater political stability.

Strengthening Coalition Politics

In coalition governments, the fear of disqualification has meant that political parties are now more careful in managing their alliances. The requirement that defectors cannot become ministers has helped ensure that governments remain stable for longer periods, reducing the frequency of mid-term elections due to political instability.

Challenges and Criticisms of the 91st Amendment Act

While the 91st Amendment has certainly improved the political landscape, there have been several challenges and criticisms that have undermined its full potential:

Role of the Speaker and Delays in Disqualification

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies continues to hold the responsibility of adjudicating defection cases. However, there is no statutory timeline for the Speaker to decide these cases. This has led to prolonged delays in some cases, with the Speaker’s decisions sometimes perceived as biased, as they are often from the ruling party. The lack of timely decisions diminishes the deterrent effect of the law.

Loopholes and Workarounds

Despite the provisions of the 91st Amendment, there have been instances where politicians have found ways to circumvent the law. For example, in some cases, legislators have resigned en masse and then re-contested elections, effectively sidestepping the disqualification period. Such workarounds undermine the effectiveness of the law in curbing defections.

Over-Centralisation of Power

Critics argue that the 91st Amendment has led to a centralisation of power within political parties. The law restricts individual legislators from acting independently, as they are bound by party decisions on issues. This diminishes their ability to represent their constituents effectively and may even lead to a lack of accountability.

Conclusion

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 has played a significant role in reforming India’s political system. By limiting the size of the cabinet and curbing political defections, it has contributed to greater political stability and more efficient governance. However, the Act’s success has been tempered by challenges such as delays in disqualification decisions and workarounds exploited by defectors.