We have all noticed that some Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly had switched over loyalties to other parties or other political faiths, while they still continue to hold on to the primary membership of the party through which they had got themselves elected.

Funnier still is the culture of smaller parties in certain States (their parents parties being major parties in other states) merging themselves with another major party in the State and bolstering the numbers of the elected representatives of the party in which that smaller party merged in the Assembly.

The second is funny as the provisions of the Anti Defection Law would not have any impact on this merger, as any merger would be seen as not violating the provisions of the X Schedule of the Constitution of India in view of the following provisions in the X Schedule.

Paragraph 4:

2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the merger of the original political party of a member of a House shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.

So when MPs and MLAs move over to other parties or faiths, during the life of a legislature, without resigning or vacating their seats, they hide under various underground tunnels specially constructed for them by the expensive imaginative lawyers to escape from the clutches of the provisions of the Anti Defection laws and still retain their seats.

In effect the electorate doesn’t know for sure whether their representative represents the manifesto, with which the successful MP or MLA sought their votes, or has he moved on.

This according to me is political Adultery. As the benefits of the earlier marriage subsist, the person is having a good time with the poaching parties, which promise probably better perks and pelf, in the uncertain future.

Political fornication is when such an arrangement is resorted to without the person being an MP or an MLA. The enticing party can entertain hopes of marriage and get candidates into their philosophy or fold, but once the electorate has chosen a candidate the sanctity is like that of a marriage. Any deviation from the stamp of the electorate ought to be only with the consent of the electorate- but like Adultery, the hidden is more important than the apparent.

I am reminded of the anecdote relating to Winston Churchill after he lost the General Elections as a Conservative to the Liberal Attlee in 1945.

Since Churchill was an avowed apostles of the Empire, despite his loss at the hustings (personally he won the Woodford constituency but the Tories lost), the then king George VI offered Winston the highest civilian British award THE ORDER OF THE GARTER. But Winston is said to have replied: When the people of Britain had given him the ORDER OF THE BOOT, how could he accept the GARTER.

But in India where the numbers of the electorate is humongous and the seats are even fewer than the British Parliament, one should see the sex ratio as skewed and the sanctity of marriages are not possible to be maintained and the only adjustment is through Political Adultery.

I am more interested in the family Courts which are going to adjudicate the issues which are the offshoot of such Political Adultery.