Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya- A Comment.

An inexorable part of Parliamentary Democracies-significant in formulating laws and representing the electorates, is formed by Defections by the elected representatives to the ‘House’. In our country, where, in the election of representatives to the House is accompanied by the vital role of the ‘label of political parties- floor changing subsequent to being elected is regarded as perfidy against people’s will especially when voters place their confidence in the capabilities of any political party’ .The Indian Government sought to curb and reduce such political defections through the inception “The Anti-Defection law or the Tenth Schedule- enacted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985”. While the statute persists to minimize political corruption and deceit leading to political defections, perpetual debates and questions arise as to “how efficient these laws are at protecting political stability and discouraging acquisitive behaviour on the part of elected officials” . In light of the same, the undertaking, shall thoroughly delve into the comprehension of the Anti-Defection law in India through analysing the landmark case of- Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya .