With seven out of 10 AAP Rajya Sabha MPs joining the BJP exceeding the two-thirds threshold to avoid disqualification does the law truly permit such a "merger" even when the parent party remains intact? Is it time to bar indirectly elected members from switching allegiances?
— Manimaran N, Chennai
The “Aya Ram Gaya Ram” culture has plagued Indian politics for decades, leading to various legislative attempts to curb floor-crossing. Currently, the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution vests the power to decide on disqualification with the Speaker or Chairperson. However, this process often becomes deeply politicised. We frequently see presiding officers delaying decisions to allow defectors to complete their terms, despite specific directions from the Supreme Court. This trend has sparked a debate on whether such powers should instead be transferred to the judiciary.
A major legal loophole lies in the ambiguity between a "split" and a "merger", specifically whether these terms apply to the organisational parent party or merely the legislative wing. By treating themselves as a distinct unit, legislators often abandon the parent party while claiming a legal merger. This literal interpretation undermines the spirit of the anti-defection law.
To protect the sanctity of legislative bodies, the law needs a fundamental shift. We require a clearly defined "no defection" rule for the entire duration of a member's term. If a legislator chooses to switch allegiances or quit their party, the law must mandate that they immediately resign from their office. This would ensure that the mandate remains with the electorate rather than becoming a tool for political expediency.
Prioritise parental governance and strong laws to combat risks of addictive online gaming
The new rules for online gaming appear to follow a "regulation-light" approach for many platforms. With no mandatory registration, how will user safety features like age-gating be enforced? Can a multi-sectoral body truly protect the public from addiction and fraud, or is this "light" regulation too risky?
— Maithili, Sowripalayam, Coimbatore
Approaches to online gaming regulation remain far from uniform. In Tamil Nadu, for instance, efforts to abolish online rummy faced significant hurdles. The Governor delayed assent and eventually returned the Bill with 29 pages of objections, questioning the State legislature's power to enact such laws. Even after assent was granted, the law was struck down, and the matter remains pending in the Supreme Court to determine whether online rummy is a game of chance or skill.
In the interim, Central notifications have introduced a framework for regulating online games. However, as technology evolves rapidly, it has become nearly impossible to stop all games through legislation alone. Some states have responded by banning mobile phones in schools, but for the remainder of the day, usage depends entirely on parental monitoring.
Ultimately, no law including a total ban can succeed without active parental support and the robust governance of potentially harmful technologies. While regulatory bodies aim to provide a safety net, the primary defence against addiction and financial fraud in a "regulation-light" environment must start at home. Relying solely on profit-driven platforms to enforce age-gating is insufficient; effective protection requires a combination of clear legal mandates and vigilant parental oversight to navigate the complexities of the digital age.