TENTH SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Link: => dicampsgencomp.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzY6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZG93bmxvYWRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MzY6IjEwdGggc2NoZWR1bGUgb2YgaW5kaWFuIGNvbnN0aXR1dGlvbiI7fQ==


Bar of jurisdiction of courts. Thus Article 31-B of the Constitution of India ensured that any law in the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged in courts and Government can rationalize its programme of social engineering by reforming land and agrarian laws. Provides for human rights safeguards and mechanisms to prevent abuse of executive and legislative authority.

Which one of the following as Kharif crop? The case is pending in the S.

TENTH SCHEDULE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Politicians make promises but never fulfill those promises; they work on filling their pockets and making life of people miserable. Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister of the 10th schedule of indian constitution with a massive mandate. This law would not have been passed if there had been no Rajiv Gandhi and his government with an unparalleled massive 10th schedule of indian constitution. This law was passed so that it curbs the political deflections but the ever increasing hunger of our legislatures and with our excellent legal fraternity it was not a difficult task to find some loopholes in this law and they used it to their interest. Schedule X of our Constitution provides for Anti-defection law, it is as follows:- 1. Disqualification on ground of defection. Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of merger. Exemption—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Schedule 10th schedule of indian constitution, a person who has been elected to the office of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of the House of the People or the Deputy Chairman of the Council of States or the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council of a State or the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a Stateshall not be disqualified under this Schedule, — a if heby reason of his election to such officevoluntarily gives up the membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such election and does notso long as he continues to hold such office thereafterrejoin that political party or become a member of another political party ; or b if hehaving given up by reason of his election to such office his membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such electionrejoins such political party after he ceases to hold such office. Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection. Bar of jurisdiction of courts. Advantages and Disadvantages of this law: This law have its own advantage and disadvantages and it is upon our politicians and our 10th schedule of indian constitution to see how they interpret this law and help in the proper functioning of the democracy. Advantages : · Provides stability to the government by preventing shifts of party allegiance. · Ensures that candidates elected with party support and on the basis of party manifestoes remain loyal to the party policies. Disadvantages: · By preventing parliamentarians from changing parties, it reduces the accountability of the government to the Parliament and the people. Disqualifications in Parliament and State Legislatures: According to a statistics from 2004, from 1985 to 2004 there had been 88 complaints of anti-defection made in Parliament and 268 complaints in State Legislatures, out of which 26 were approved in the Parliament and 113 in State Legislatures. Punjab State Legislature tops the chart with 23 disqualifications till 2004 followed by Nagaland with 15 and Goa with 12. The Law Relating to Defection in Other Countries : Anti- defection law is not only practiced in India but it is provided by various other countries like Bangladesh, Kenya, South Africa, etc. Article 70 of the Bangladesh Constitution says a member shall vacate his seat if he resigns from or votes against the directions given by his party. The dispute is referred by the Speaker to the Election Commission. Section 40 of the Kenyan Constitution states that a member who resigns from his party has to vacate his seat. The decision is by the Speaker, and the member may appeal to the High Court. Article 46 of the Singapore Constitution says a member must vacate his seat if he resigns, or is expelled from his party. Article 48 states that Parliament decides on any question relating to the disqualification of a member. Section 47 of the South African Constitution provides that a member loses membership of the Parliament if he ceases to be a member of the party that nominated him. Defect of Defections: Defections numbering more than one-third of the party's strength were considered to be legal. It also provided for the disqualification of individual members defecting from the party through which the member was elected. Even here, the law is open to considerable interpretation, and in some state legislatures the bias of the Speaker leads to confusion, often resulting in litigation. The first challenge to the anti-defection law was made in the Punjab and Haryana high court in Parkash Singh Badal and others v. Union of India and others. The framers of the Constitution, therefore, never intended to confer any absolute right of freedom of 10th schedule of indian constitution on a member of the Parliament and the same can be regulated or curtailed by making any constitutional provision, such as the 52nd Amendment. The provisions of Para 2 b cannot, therefore, be termed as violative of the provisions of Article 105 of the Constitution. The Constitution 52nd Amendment Bill 1985 suddenly introduced the provision that questions of disqualification on ground of defection shall be decided by 10th schedule of indian constitution and speakers of the legislative bodies. The intention was to have speedier adjudicative processes under the Tenth Schedule. This provision was a subject matter of serious debate in both Houses of Parliament 10th schedule of indian constitution the bill was being passed. The 91st Amendment to the Constitution was enacted in 2003 to tighten the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule, enacted earlier in 1985. This amendment makes it mandatory for all those switching political sides — whether singly or in groups — to resign their legislative membership. The amendment also bars legislators from holding, post-defection, any office of profit. This amendment has thus made defections virtually impossible and is an important step forward in cleansing politics. Irony of the situation today is that the events have nullified the real intent of the dream of Rajiv Gandhi. There have been instances wherein after the declaration of election results, winning candidates have resigned from their membership of the House as well as the party from which they got elected. Immediately, they have joined the political party which has formed the government and have again contested from that political party, which appears to be a fraud and goes against the spirit of the democracy and 52nd constitutional amendment. The ingenious human brain invented innovative ideas to obtain resignations and, in effect, made the anti-defection law a cover to hide their heinous crime. This law excluded the jurisdiction of judiciary from reviewing the decisions of Speakers. This part was held to be unconstitutional by Supreme Court, while it upheld the rest of the law. The Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that paragraph 7 of tenth schedule completely excluded jurisdiction of all courts including the Supreme Court under Article 136 and High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of the member of a House. The Constitution does not allow the legislature to limit the powers of judiciary. Accordingly the Supreme Court reviewed and struck down the order passed by Speaker of Goa Assembly for disqualifying two members in violation of constitutional mandate contained in paragraph 3 of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 10th schedule of indian constitution This law has given additional dictatorial power to the political party to keep the flock together for an entire term. It also violates the principle of representative democracy by empowering the party, and undermining the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents. The anti defection law makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy by marginalizing debates, as the legislators are not allowed to dissent, without being disqualified by the House. Disruptions, rather than substantive debate, become the only form of opposition possible. Parliamentary debate has thereby become largely redundant. As the political parties invented mechanisms to fail this constitutional legislation, the judiciary played a very significant role in upholding the legality and morality of the law besides expanding its horizons to curb most treacherous practice of sudden political disloyalty. This Tenth Schedule whenever used enhancing the burden of courts. The political parties, instead of maintaining standards within the party with effective leadership, are resorting to litigation, begging the courts to decide the political issues, which they failed to settle. The Karnataka High Court is now engaged with the issue of political leadership of ruling party and manipulative politics of opposition party. This is another unfortunate development. It is not fair to blame judiciary for taking time to decide this tricky question within the frame work of constitution. Neither the Governor nor the Speaker is bona fide. Their moves are not fair. They desperately try to use Constitutional power to settle political scores and wreck political vengeance. Dependents and Independents There are a few nominated seats provided by the Constitution in legislative houses. Unless he is dependent, he cannot be nominated as legislator. Hence he can decide his loyalty. A nominated member of a house will be disqualified if he joins any political party after six months. That means law permits him to be loyal or disloyal to nominating party only for six months. If an independent legislator joins a political party he would lose membership. Law mandates an independent legislator to maintain the independent status. He can choose to support any political party but should not attach himself to any. This decision should be supported by the material placed on record. In Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana the legislators were elected as Members of Assembly as independent candidates. Later they joined a political party and news of their joining was reported in print as well as electronic media. Thereafter those members were disqualified from being members of Assembly by Speaker. This has to be determined on appreciation of material on record and conduct of the member of the Speaker. No hard and fast rule can be laid down when the answer is dependent on facts of each case. Disqualification of these members by speaker was upheld, despite the allegation of procedural defect in enquiry. It does not violate their conscience. The provisions do not violate any right or freedom under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that to the extend that the provisions grant finality to the orders of the Speaker, the provision is valid. However, the High Courts and the Supreme Court can exercise judicial review under the Constitution. Para 7 seeks to change the operation and effect of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution which give the High Courts and Supreme Court jurisdiction in such cases. Any such provision is required to be ratified by state legislatures as per Article 368 2. The paragraph was therefore held invalid as it had not been ratified. In another case an issue was raised that whether a member can be said to voluntarily give up his membership of a Partyif he joins another party after being expelled by his old political party, it was held by S. However, he continues to be a member of the old party as per the Tenth Schedule. So if he joins a new party after being expelled, he can be said to have voluntarily given up membership of his old party. Such power is not provided for under the Schedule, and is not implicit in the provisions either. In Ravi S, Nayak v. Any violation of those would be a procedural irregularity. Procedural irregularity is immune from judicial scrutiny. Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors. The Court said that ignoring a petition for disqualification is not merely an irregularity but a violation of constitutional duties. Koya defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House and vote against the Motion of Confidence for the government. He claimed he was too ill to be present in the House. The Speaker concluded that Dr. · Shri Prabhunath Singh vs. Shri Prasad defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House. In his defence, he denied that any whip was issued or served. · Shri Avtar Singh Bhadana vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh, Indian National CongressSeptember 10, 2008. The Speaker held that a person getting elected as a candidate of a political party also gets elected because of the programs of the party. If the person leaves the party, he should go back before the electorate. · Shri Rajesh Verma vs. It was alleged that Shri Akhlaque joined the Samajwadi Party in a public meeting. The Speaker reasoned that there is no reason why news clippings and stories in the media would be untruthful. · The most recent case relating to anti-defection is from the Karnataka State Legislature where B. A complaint was made against them and speaker disqualified them from their membership. The case is pending in the S. It is high time that a watchdog should be provided to our Parliament and there is a need for our constitutional pundits to revisit the issue to combat the menace of corruption and defection which has eroded the values of democracy. This law can also work if certain recommendations mentioned above are taken into consideration and an amendment be made in this law. Politicians make promises but never fulfill those promises; they work on filling their pockets and making life of people miserable. Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister of the country with a massive mandate. This law would not have been passed if there had been no Rajiv Gandhi and his government with an unparalleled massive majority. This law was passed so that it curbs the political deflections but the ever increasing hunger of our legislatures and with our excellent legal fraternity it was not a difficult task to find some loopholes in this law and they used it to their interest. Schedule X of our Constitution provides for Anti-defection law, it is as follows:- 1. Disqualification on ground of defection. Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of merger. Exemption—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Schedulea person who has been elected to the office of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of the House of the People or the Deputy Chairman of the Council of States or the Chairman or the Deputy 10th schedule of indian constitution of the Legislative Council of a State or the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a Stateshall not be disqualified under this Schedule, — a if heby reason of his election to such officevoluntarily gives up the membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such election and does notso long as he continues to hold such office thereafterrejoin that political party or become a member of another political party ; or b if hehaving given up by reason of his election to such office his membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such electionrejoins such political party after he ceases to hold such office. Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection. Bar of jurisdiction of courts. Advantages and Disadvantages of this law: This law have its own advantage and disadvantages and it is upon our politicians and our citizens to see how they interpret this law and help in the proper functioning of the democracy. Advantages : · Provides stability to the government by preventing shifts of party allegiance. · Ensures that candidates elected with party support and on the basis of party manifestoes remain loyal to the party policies. Disadvantages: · By preventing parliamentarians from changing parties, it reduces the accountability of the government to the Parliament and the people. Disqualifications in Parliament and State Legislatures: According to a statistics from 2004, from 1985 to 2004 there had been 88 complaints of anti-defection made in Parliament and 268 complaints in State Legislatures, out of which 26 were approved in the Parliament and 113 in State Legislatures. Punjab State Legislature tops the chart with 23 disqualifications till 2004 followed by Nagaland with 15 and Goa with 12. The Law Relating to Defection in Other Countries : Anti- defection law is not only practiced in India but it is provided by various other countries like Bangladesh, Kenya, South Africa, etc. Article 70 of the Bangladesh Constitution says a member shall vacate his seat if he resigns from or votes against the directions given by his party. The dispute is referred by the Speaker to the Election Commission. Section 40 of the Kenyan Constitution states that a member who resigns from his party has to vacate his seat. The decision is by the Speaker, and the member may appeal to the High Court. Article 46 of the Singapore Constitution says a member must vacate his seat if he resigns, or is expelled from his party. Article 48 states that Parliament decides on any question relating to the disqualification of a member. Section 47 of the South African Constitution provides that a member loses membership of the Parliament if he ceases to be a member of the party that nominated him. Defect of Defections: Defections numbering more than one-third of the party's strength were considered to be legal. It also provided for the disqualification of individual members defecting from the party through which the member was elected. Even here, the law is open to considerable interpretation, and in some state legislatures the bias of the Speaker leads to confusion, often resulting in litigation. The first challenge to the anti-defection law was made in the Punjab and Haryana high court in Parkash Singh Badal and others v. Union of India and others. The framers of the Constitution, therefore, never intended to confer any absolute right of freedom of speech on a member of the Parliament and the same can be regulated or curtailed by making any constitutional provision, such as the 52nd Amendment. The provisions of Para 2 b cannot, therefore, be termed as violative of the provisions of Article 105 of the Constitution. The Constitution 52nd Amendment Bill 1985 suddenly introduced the provision that questions of disqualification on ground of defection shall be decided by chairmen and 10th schedule of indian constitution of the legislative bodies. The intention was to have speedier adjudicative processes under the Tenth Schedule. This provision was a subject matter of serious debate 10th schedule of indian constitution both Houses of Parliament when the bill was being passed. The 91st Amendment to the Constitution was enacted in 2003 to tighten the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule, enacted earlier in 1985. This amendment makes it mandatory for all those switching political 10th schedule of indian constitution — whether singly or in groups — to resign their legislative membership. The amendment 10th schedule of indian constitution bars legislators from holding, post-defection, any office of profit. This amendment has thus made defections virtually impossible and is an important step forward in cleansing politics. Irony of the situation today is that the events have nullified the real intent of the dream of Rajiv Gandhi. There have been instances wherein after the declaration of election results, winning candidates have resigned from their membership of the House as well as the party from which they got elected. Immediately, they have joined the political party which has formed the government and have again contested from that political party, which appears to be a fraud and goes against the spirit of the democracy and 52nd constitutional amendment. The ingenious human brain invented innovative ideas to obtain resignations and, in effect, made the anti-defection law a cover to hide their heinous crime. This law excluded the jurisdiction of judiciary from reviewing the decisions of Speakers. This part was held to be unconstitutional by Supreme Court, while it upheld the rest of the law. The Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that paragraph 7 of tenth schedule completely excluded jurisdiction of all courts including the Supreme Court under Article 136 and High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of any matter connected with the 10th schedule of indian constitution of the member of a House. The Constitution does not allow the legislature to limit the powers of judiciary. Accordingly the Supreme Court reviewed and struck down the order passed by Speaker of Goa Assembly for disqualifying two members in violation of constitutional mandate contained in paragraph 3 of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. This law has given additional dictatorial power to the political party to keep the flock together for an entire term. It also violates the principle of representative democracy by empowering the party, and undermining the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents. The anti defection law makes a mockery of 10th schedule of indian constitution democracy by marginalizing debates, as the legislators are not allowed to dissent, without being disqualified by the House. Disruptions, rather than substantive debate, become the only form of opposition possible. Parliamentary debate has thereby become largely redundant. As the political parties invented mechanisms to fail this constitutional legislation, the judiciary played a very significant role in upholding the legality and morality of the law besides expanding its horizons to curb most treacherous practice of sudden political disloyalty. This Tenth Schedule whenever used enhancing the burden of courts. The political parties, instead of maintaining standards within the party with effective leadership, are resorting to litigation, begging the courts to decide the political issues, which they failed to settle. The Karnataka High Court is now engaged with the issue of political leadership of ruling party and manipulative politics of opposition party. This is another unfortunate development. It is not fair to blame judiciary for taking time to decide this tricky question within the frame work of constitution. Neither the Governor nor the Speaker is bona fide. Their moves are not fair. They desperately try to use Constitutional power to settle political scores and wreck political vengeance. Dependents and Independents There are a few nominated seats provided by the Constitution in legislative houses. Unless he is dependent, he cannot be nominated as legislator. Hence he can decide his loyalty. A nominated member of a house will be disqualified if he joins any political party after six months. That means law permits him to be loyal or disloyal to nominating party only for six months. If an independent legislator joins a political party he would lose membership. Law mandates an independent legislator to maintain the independent status. He can choose to support any political party but should not attach himself to any. 10th schedule of indian constitution decision should be supported by the material placed on record. In Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana the legislators were elected as Members of Assembly as independent candidates. Later they joined a political party and news of their joining was reported in print as well as electronic media. Thereafter those members were disqualified from being members of Assembly by Speaker. This has to be determined on appreciation of material on record and conduct of the member of the Speaker. No hard and fast rule can be laid down when the answer is dependent on facts of each case. Disqualification of these members by speaker was upheld, despite the allegation of procedural defect in enquiry. It does not violate their conscience. The provisions do not violate any right or freedom under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that to the extend that the provisions grant finality to the orders of the Speaker, the provision is valid. However, the High Courts and the Supreme Court can exercise judicial review under the Constitution. Para 7 seeks to change the operation and effect of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution which give the High Courts and Supreme Court jurisdiction in such cases. Any such provision is required to be ratified by state legislatures as per Article 368 2. The paragraph was therefore held invalid as it had not been ratified. In another case an issue was raised that whether a member can be said to voluntarily give up his membership of a Partyif he joins another party after being expelled by his old political party, it was held by S. However, he continues to be a member of the old party as per the Tenth Schedule. So if he joins a new party after being expelled, he can be said to have voluntarily given up membership of his old party. Such power is not provided for under the Schedule, and is not implicit in the provisions either. In Ravi S, Nayak v. Any violation of those would be a procedural irregularity. Procedural irregularity is immune from judicial scrutiny. Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors. The Court said that ignoring a petition for disqualification is not merely an irregularity but a violation of constitutional duties. Koya defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House and vote against the Motion of Confidence for the government. He claimed he was too ill to be present in the House. The Speaker concluded that Dr. · Shri Prabhunath Singh vs. Shri Prasad defied a party whip requiring him to be present in the House. In his defence, he denied that any whip was issued or served. · Shri Avtar Singh Bhadana vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh, Indian National CongressSeptember 10, 2008. The Speaker held that a person getting elected as a candidate of a political party also gets elected because of the programs of the party. If the person leaves the party, he should go back before the electorate. · Shri Rajesh Verma vs. It was alleged 10th schedule of indian constitution Shri Akhlaque joined the Samajwadi Party in a public meeting. The Speaker reasoned that there is no reason why news clippings and stories in the media would be untruthful. · The most recent case relating to anti-defection is from the Karnataka State Legislature where B. A complaint was made against them and speaker disqualified them from their membership. The case is pending in the S. Recommendations of Various Bodies on Reforming the Anti-Defection Law: Ø Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms 1990 § Disqualification should be limited to cases where a a member voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party, b a member abstains from voting, or votes contrary to the party whip in a motion of vote of confidence or motion of no-confidence. Ø Law Commission 170th Report, 1999 § Provisions which exempt splits and mergers from disqualification to be deleted. § Pre-poll electoral fronts should be treated as political parties under anti-defection law. § Political parties should limit issuance of whips to instances only when the government is in danger. Ø Constitution Review Commission 2002 § Defectors should be barred from holding public office or any remunerative political post for the duration of the remaining term. § The vote cast by a defector to topple a government should be treated as invalid. It is high time that a watchdog should be provided to our Parliament and there is a need for our constitutional pundits to revisit the issue to combat the menace of corruption and defection which has eroded the values of democracy. This law can also work if certain recommendations mentioned above are taken into consideration and an amendment be made in this law.

Unless he is dependent, he cannot be nominated as legislator. Amend articles 13 and 368. It was administered by the Portuguese Governor of until 1954. Certain amendments pertaining to the constitution's federal nature must also be ratified by a majority of state legislatures. Amendments Enforced since Objectives Prime Minister President 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376. Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. Politicians make promises but never fulfill those promises; they work on filling their pockets and making life of people miserable. Article 70 of the Bangladesh Constitution says a member shall vacate his seat if he resigns from or votes against the directions given by his party. After independence, zamindari abolition and land reforms laws were passed as a move towards more egalitarian society, but the Government efforts of social engineering faced several problems, the land legislations were challenged in the courts. In April, the Indian Army took over the city of Gangtok and disarmed the Palace Guards.