INTRODUCTION
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar once said, “Political parties are supposed to promote democracy, but do the elected representatives have the freedom of expression? Whip comes in the way.” [1] The whip system is a key part of parliamentary democracies. It maintains party discipline and unified decision-making. However, critics argue it also stifles lawmakers’ freedom to think. Those who back it say it’s the foundation of good governance. But those against it claim it stops independent thinking and can make elected officials vote against what they believe in, hurting their voters’ interests. Vice President Jagdeep Shankar reignited the debate. He asked the crucial question, “Do elected representatives have real freedom to speak if a whip binds them?” He thinks the whip system limits their freedom, making them “servile”. This creates a big problem in Indian Politics – Should loyalty to the party matter more than a lawmaker’s conscience and duty to their voters?
Political Party is a conduit between the state and the people and a key instrument in healthy representative democracy. Different Political Parties meet, interact and form a coalition that might be based on ideological leaning, common goal or orientation. To make the legislature/parliament function effectively and dive through federal tension, political parties feel the need for a mandatory whip system. In this blog, we’ll look at how the whip system started, its legal basis, and how it works in India and other democracies.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION
The word “whip” comes from hunting, where a “whipper-in” kept dogs together on a hunt. In the 1700s, the British Parliament started using whips to ensure party members showed up and voted how the party wanted. As parties got more organized in the 1800s, the whip system grew. Parties picked whips to handle their members, get them to important votes, and tell them what the party thought about issues.
India inherited the whip system from the British. When India became free in 1947, it chose the Westminster model of government, including the whip system. The system was incorporated into the functioning of the Indian Parliament and state legislatures. While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the whip system, it is governed by rules and conventions of parliamentary procedure.
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment[2] introduced the Anti-Defection Law[3] (10th Schedule of the Constitution), introduced in 1985, which strengthened the whip system by making it mandatory for members to follow the party whip. Defying the whip could lead to disqualification from the legislature.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
While the Constitution does not explicitly mention whips, their application has been upheld by various judicial interpretations. The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution[4], introduced by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1985[5], is the cornerstone of the current whip system’s legal framework. It addresses defection by members of Parliament (MPs) and state legislatures.
“Sub-paragraph 1(b) of paragraph 2 of the 10th schedule states lawmakers face disqualification if they ignore their party’s voting orders without permission unless they obtain prior permission of their political party or condonation within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention.”[6]
The Supreme Court’s 1993 ruling in Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillhu[7] limited the Tenth Schedule’s[8] application to votes on confidence or no-confidence motions and matters important to a party’s core policies and ruled Speaker’s decision to disqualify someone under the Anti-Defection Law[9] is subject to judicial review.
ROLE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE WHIP
In the parliamentary system, Whips are the most significant organisational mechanism for the internal organisation of parties in the house. The orderly functioning of Parliament and State Legislatures depends, to a significant degree, upon the office of the Whip.
Both the ruling party and the opposition parties designate their respective whips, with specific responsibilities shared among the whips of all parties. The ruling government’s whip has some important responsibilities, including scheduling and coordinating sessions and monitoring how the government works in the House. They always keep a finger on the pulse of the House and inform the Leader of the House/Government of their findings. They facilitate communication between the House Leader and members of the ruling party, while also maintaining contact with whips from other parties about House business and wider parliamentary stuff.
The opposition party’s whip also plays a key role in how the house works. They keep their members in the loop and make sure they take part in major discussions and votes. This keeps discourse robust and resonant. They act as a bridge between their party members, the presiding officers, and the legislative secretariat, navigating the complexities of parliamentary procedures, practices, and conventions, ensuring smooth coordination and effective representation of their party’s interests. In this way, they keep democracy alive.
WHIP SYSTEM IN OTHER DEMOCRACIES
In the UK, party whips play a key role in keeping members in line. They make sure MPs show up and inform members where the party stands on different issues. The UK uses a three-tier whip system: one-line, two-line, and three-line. Going against a three-line whip can get members kicked out of the party. Unlike in India, British MPs can’t face legal trouble for not following a whip.
The US has a more relaxed approach to party discipline than India and Britain’s strict whip systems. Congress members generally vote based on their constituency while reflecting their perspectives. The United States does not have any law that establishes an equivalent protective system that parallels India’s Anti-Defection Law[10]. Lawmakers who vote against their party get no sanctioned reprimand from the legal system. Most party leaders work out deals with their members to secure support on critical issues since cross-voting happens often.
The party system in Australia is strong because whips function as key elements in keeping parties unified. Members who disobey the whip directives may encounter party expulsion and elimination from future election candidate lists. The law does not define any form of disqualification for members who cross party lines. Australian political parties maintain potent leadership control over members, leading to minimal member defections from the party’s official voting position.
In Germany, Political parties exist as “fractions” at the Bundestag, yet they enforce member discipline through their internal party regulations. Party leaders enforce party discipline by constructing agreements and reaching group-wide consensus instead of using a parliamentary whip. Political members typically support party decisions except for particular matters in which they retain the freedom to vote independently.
CONCLUSION
The whip system remains a cornerstone of India’s parliamentary democracy. It ensures party discipline and government stability but raises concerns about limiting legislators’ autonomy. The whip system should be liberalized to make Indian democracy fully representative. Legislators should be given more autonomy so that they can represent local aspirations and raise the voices of the people from whom they are elected. Its future evolution must address the growing demand for greater legislative autonomy and accountability, reflecting the true spirit of democratic governance.
Author(s) Name: Dipendra Pandey (SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai University, Mumbai)
References:
[1] PIB Delhi, “Access to judiciary has been weaponized, posing a great challenge to our governance, underlines VP. Institutions are yielding ground to other institutions out of expediency, such placatory mechanisms may result in incalculable spinal damage-VP. Why should there be a whip? Whip means you are subjecting your representative to servility, says VP. Chaos, disruption and disturbance is remote controlled in the house, highlights VP. Once a temple of democracy has now become a wrestling ground, a battleground, there is no concept of dignity anymore-VP.” (PIB, 22 Jan 2025)< https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2095060 > accessed 30 January 2025
[2] Constitution (Fifty second Amendment) Act, 1985
[3] Constitution of India, sch 10
[4] Ibid
[5] Constitution (Fifty second Amendment) Act, 1985
[6] Constitution of India, Sch 10, para 2(1)(b)
[7] Kihoto Holohan v Zachillhu (1993), AIR 1993 SC 412
[8] Constitution of India, sch 10
[9] The Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985
[10] The Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985
