The Anti-Defection Law, as mentioned in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, was introduced in 1985 to curb the practice of defectors switching parties and destabilizing governments. The law aims to promote party discipline and stability by preventing lawmakers from switching sides without the consent of their party. Here’s an evaluation of its efficiency:

Efficiency in reducing political instability:

1. Reduced frequency of defections: Since the introduction of the Anti-Defection Law, the frequency of defections has decreased significantly. According to data, the number of cases of defection has decreased from 143 between 1980-1985 to 24 between 2014-2019.
2. Stability in governments: The law has contributed to greater stability in governments, as lawmakers are less likely to switch parties and cause instability. This has enabled governments to function more effectively and make decisions without fear of sudden changes.
3. Reduced horse-trading: The law has reduced horse-trading, where lawmakers are bribed or coerced to switch parties. This has helped to maintain the integrity of the political process and reduce corruption.
4. Protecting Mandate: By prohibiting elected officials from switching allegiance without facing repercussions, the law serves to preserve the mandate that voters granted to a specific party or coalition.

Efficiency in enhancing party discipline:

1. Increased party loyalty: The Anti-Defection Law has encouraged lawmakers to be more loyal to their parties, as they are less likely to risk being disqualified or penalized for switching sides.
2. Improved governance: With more party loyalty, lawmakers are more likely to work together towards common goals, leading to better governance and policy-making.
3. Reduced internal conflicts: The law has reduced internal conflicts within parties, as lawmakers are less likely to challenge their party leadership or rebel against party decisions.

Challenges and limitations:

1. Difficulty in implementation: The law is often difficult to implement effectively, particularly in cases where lawmakers claim they were coerced or forced to switch parties.
2. Loopholes: The law has loopholes that can be exploited by clever lawmakers or those with significant resources.
3. Lack of teeth: The law does not provide for severe penalties for defectors, making it difficult to deter them from switching parties.
4. Limited scope: The law only applies to elected representatives at the national level and does not extend to local or state-level politicians.
5. Proactive role of Election Commission: Concerns regarding prejudice and political interference are raised by the Speakers of the House’s present defection case decision-making process. Impartiality could be improved by transferring decision-making authority to an unbiased entity like the Election Commission. The 2nd ARC recommended that the issue of disqualification of members on the grounds of defection should be decided by the President/Governor on the advice of the Election Commission.
6. Internal Democracy: Enacting laws to protect internal party democracy and openness may lessen lawmakers’ sense of disappointment and maybe stop desertion brought on by party dissatisfaction.
7. Time-bound Decisions: To avoid protracted uncertainty and political manipulation, a rigorous timeline for deciding defection cases should be established.
8. Judicial Recourse: Under some circumstances, allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court or High Courts may offer more protection against arbitrary rulings.

In conclusion, while the Anti-Defection Law has contributed to reducing political instability and enhancing party discipline, it is not without its challenges and limitations. To further improve its efficiency, it is essential to:

1. Strengthen implementation mechanisms
2. Close loopholes and provide for stricter penalties
3. Expand the scope of the law to cover local and state-level politicians
4. Improve transparency and accountability in political financing

By addressing these concerns, India can further strengthen its political stability and promote a more disciplined and responsible political culture.

The 42nd Amendment Act, of 1976, was often called a mini-constitution. It was a significant development of the Indian Constitution. This amendment was enacted on January 3, 1977. The aim of the 42nd Amendment was to strengthen the federal structure of the country and reduce the powers of the Judiciary. The key provisions of the amendment included:

1. It added the words ‘Socialist,’ ‘Secular,’ and ‘Integrity’ to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
2. The amendment expanded the list of Fundamental Duties for Indian citizens.
3. Insertion of Article 31-C: This provision prohibited the courts from entertaining any petition challenging the constitutional validity of any law made by Parliament.
4. Amendments to Article 368: The amendment altered the procedure for amending the Constitution, making it more difficult for the courts to interfere with parliamentary decisions.
5. Changes to Article 352: The amendment expanded the circumstances under which the President could declare a national emergency.

6. The amendment was controversial due to its perceived attempt to undermine judicial review and limit civil liberties. Critics argued that it was an undemocratic move by the Indira Gandhi government to consolidate its power and suppress opposition. The amendment was passed through a joint session of Parliament, with support from the ruling party and some opposition parties. The 42nd Amendment had a profound impact on India’s federal structure. It significantly increased the power of the central government, reducing the autonomy of state governments. This shift emphasized a more unitary system, which some argued was against the federal nature of the nation.