VENKATACHALIAH - (1.) . In these petitions the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution introduced by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amend- ment) Act, 1985, is assailed. These two cases were amongst a batch of writ petitions, transfer petitions, civil appeals, special leave petitions and other similar and connected matters raising common questions which 668 were all heard together. On 12/11/1991 we made an order pronouncing our findings and conclusions upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment and of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, except for Paragraph 7 which was declared invalid for want of ratification in terms of and as required by the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution. In the order dated 12/11/1991 our conclusions were set out and we indicated that the reasons for the conclusions would follow later. The reasons for the conclusions are now set out.
(2.) . This order is made in Transfer Petition No. 40 of 1991 and in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1991. We have not gone into the factual controversies raised in the writ petition before the Gauhati High court in Rule No. 2421 of 1990 from which Transfer Petition No. 40 of 1991 arises. Indeed, in the order of 12/11/1991 itself the said writ petition was remitted to the High court for its disposal in accordance with law. . Shri F.S. Nariman, Shri Shanti Bhushan, Shri M.C. Bhandare, Shri Kapil Sibal, Shri Sharma and Shri Bhim Singh, learned counsel addressed arguments in support of the petitions. Learned Attorney-General, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Shri R.K. Garg and Shri Santhosh Hegde sought to support the constitutional validity of the amendment. Shri Ram Jethmalani has attacked the validity of the amendment for the same reasons as put forward by Shri Sharma. . Before we proceed to record our reasons for the conclusions reached in our order dated 12/11/1991, on the contentions raised and argued, it is necessary to have a brief look at the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which was adopted as the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 says: "The evil of 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."
(3.) . On 8/12/1967, the Lok Sabha had passed an unanimous Resolution in terms following: "A high-level Committee consisting of representatives of political parties and constitutional experts be set up immediately by government to consider the problem of legislators changing their allegiance from one party to another and their frequent crossing of 669 the floor in all its aspects and make recommendations in this regard." . The said Committee known as the "Committee on Defections" in its report dated 7/01/1969, inter alia, observed: "Following the Fourth General Election, in the short period between March 1967 and February 1968, the Indian political scene was characterised by numerous instances of change of party allegiance by legislators in several States. Compared to roughly 542 cases in the entire period between the First and Fourth General Election, at least 438 defections occurred in these 12 months alone. Among Independents, 157 out of a total of 376 elected joined various parties in this period. That the lure of office played a dominant part in decisions of legislators to defect was obvious from the fact that out of 210 defecting legislators of the States of Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, 116 were included in the council of Ministers which they helped to bring into being by defections. 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 individual detectors, indifference on the part of detectors 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." ;