The law does not provide for a time limit within which the president must rule on a defection case. There have been many cases where a spokesperson has not determined the case of a Member expiring before the end of parliament. There have also been cases where defecting MPs have become ministers while a defector petition against them was pending with the President. Last year, the Supreme Court sacked a Manipur minister when the spokesman failed to rule on the defector`s motion against him, even after three years. The court ruled that speakers should ideally make a decision on a defector`s request within three months. After it was passed, some lawmakers and parties took advantage of the law`s shortcomings.  There was evidence that the law did not serve to stop political outburst and in fact legitimized mass defections by exempting from its provisions laws it called divisions. For example, Chandra Shekhar and 61 other parliamentarians did not receive penalties in 1990 if they changed their loyalty at the same time.  The Lok Sabha spokesman did not allow renegade members of Janata Dal`s dissident faction to explain their views.  Another aspect of the law that was criticized was the speaker`s role in deciding on cases that arose from political defectors. The impartiality of the presidents of various chambers has been called into question with regard to the granting of official recognition to various factions of political parties. Questions have been raised about the non-partisan role of the president because of his political background within the party of which he was elected president.
  In 1991, Janata Dal (S) was accused of undermining the spirit of the anti-defection law by keeping defaulting members in ministerial positions. Later, all opposition members of the House of Representatives submitted an affidavit to the Indian president, calling on him to remove the ministers. Finally, in response to pressure to save the fallen dignity of the Speaker and the House, the Prime Minister fired renegade MPs from their ministerial positions.  The Anti-Defector Act punishes MPs who leave one party for another. It allows a group of MPs/MPs to join another political party (i.e. merge with it) without demanding punishment for overflow. And it does not punish political parties for encouraging or accepting flawed lawmakers. Parliament included it in the Constitution in 1985 as the tenth calendar. Its aim was to bring stability to governments by discouraging lawmakers from changing parties.
It was a reaction to the overthrow of several state governments by MPs who were skipping the party after the 1967 parliamentary elections. However, the law does not bind lawmakers to their political parties forever. The legislator may change parties without risk of disqualification in various specified circumstances. This law allows the party to merge with another if 2/3 of the members accept this merger. None of the members will be charged with defection in such a case. In other cases, if a person has been elected president and has had to resign from his or her party for that reason, he or she may join the party when he or she leaves that position. The law stipulates that the legislature has committed a defection if he voluntarily renounces his membership in his party or, in other cases, if he does not take into account the instructions of the party leadership in a vote in the House of Parliament. The conclusion of this action is drawn as the legislator defies the party whip. Electoral fronts before the election should be treated as political parties among anti-defectors A violation of the law in any of these scenarios can result in the punishment of a legislature for defection.
The presidents of the legislature (spokesman, president) are the decisive authorities in such cases. The Supreme Court has ruled that legislators can challenge their decisions before the high judiciary. The amended law stipulated that a member disqualified for transfer was not to hold a ministerial or other lucrative political position until the end of his or her term as a member. The amended 2003 Act excluded the provisions of the Tenth Schedule relating to the approval of defectors resulting from divisions.  The amended law also stipulated that the number of ministers in the states and union territories should not exceed fifteen percent of the total number of members in the respective chamber.  There have been many cases of defections in India. Many MPs and MPs have changed parties. In Jharkhand, former CM Babulal Marandi is also facing a tenth trial scheduled after merging his party, Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik), with the BJP. .