top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

‘Now, political defections possible without losing seat’

The recent ‘experiments’ in Ambernath and Akot civic bodies have created a political storm. Renowned legal expert, Barrister Vinod Tiwari, President of Council for Protection of Rights (CPR), gives a perspective to the row while interacting with Quaid Najmi. Excerpts... What is the Anti-Defection Law under the Indian Constitution? The Anti-Defection Law is part of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. It was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985. The main...

‘Now, political defections possible without losing seat’

The recent ‘experiments’ in Ambernath and Akot civic bodies have created a political storm. Renowned legal expert, Barrister Vinod Tiwari, President of Council for Protection of Rights (CPR), gives a perspective to the row while interacting with Quaid Najmi. Excerpts... What is the Anti-Defection Law under the Indian Constitution? The Anti-Defection Law is part of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. It was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985. The main purpose is to stop elected representatives – MPs and MLAs - from switching political parties after elections for personal/political gain. It aims to ensure political stability, respect the mandate of voters, and prevent unethical political practices. Under this law, an elected representative can be disqualified if he/she voluntarily gives up the party membership or vote against their party’s official direction (whip). There are limited exceptions, like when two-thirds of a party’s members agree to merge with another party. The Speaker or Chairman decides disqualification cases, but their decisions can be reviewed by courts.   Is there a similar Anti-Defection law for local bodies in Maharashtra? Keeping in mind the spirit of the Tenth Schedule, Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 (enforced in 1987). It applies to Municipal Councils and other local bodies and was meant to stop the elected councillors from hopping across parties post-elections, and preserve the voters’ mandate at the local level.   Why is there so much unrest in the 2025-2026 civic bodies elections? The root cause lies in post-poll alliances, which have been made legally easier through amendments to Section 63 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965. They allow political parties and/or councillors to form post-election fronts or groups. Over time, political parties have collectively and deliberately weakened the 1986 Disqualification Act, and it is now what I would call a “toothless tiger.” Hence, the strange and opportunistic post-elections alliances witnessed in Ambernath (Thane) and Akot (Akola), and some others after the December 20 municipal council elections.   How exactly was the Anti-Defection law diluted? It was through a quietly crafted amendment to Section 63 of the Municipal Councils Act, 1965, which was implemented after the 2016 local bodies elections, although the Disqualification Act remained on paper. It allows councillors and political parties - within one month of election results - to form a post-poll group or alliance, even if they contested elections separately. Once registered, this newly-formed group is treated as if it were a pre-poll alliance, and the Anti-Defection law applies only after that point. This effectively ‘legalised defections disguised as alliances’.   What were the repercussions? Another major blow came when the State Government amended the law to give itself appellate powers in Anti-Defection cases involving local bodies. Earlier, decisions were taken by Commissioners or Collectors. Now, any aggrieved councillor can appeal to the State Government, which becomes the final authority. This has given huge relief to defectors, especially when the ruling party controls the state government. Now elected representatives brazenly switch sides, aware they may not face serious consequences.   What is the long-term fallout of this trend? These amendments have made post-poll “marriages of convenience” the new political norm. The ruling party always has an unfair advantage, often forming governments without securing a clear electoral majority. This completely undermines democracy and voter trust, besides going contrary to the original purpose of the Anti-Defection Law.

Gun Violence in America

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Gun Violence in America

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.


A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.


Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.


Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.


School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.


A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.


Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.


Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.


The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.


A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.


(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page