AI-generated practice question — model-generated for extra practice, not a previous-year CBSE board question.
The unintended negative consequence is that it has made dissent within parties extremely difficult.
The anti-defection law states that if any MLA or MP changes parties, they lose their legislative seat. This same rule forces elected representatives to accept whatever the party leaders decide, even if they personally disagree. Since voting against the party line or openly dissenting could be treated as defection, MPs and MLAs cannot express independent opinions. This weakens internal democracy and makes legislators answerable to party leaders rather than to the people who elected them.
Source: Democratic Politics, Chapter 4 – How can parties be reformed?
---
The examiner wants you to identify both the consequence (suppression of dissent/internal democracy weakened) and explain the causal link — the same rule that stops defection also silences genuine disagreement. The key phrase from the textbook is: "MPs and MLAs have to accept whatever the party leaders decide." Quoting or paraphrasing this shows you've read the source. Don't just name the consequence — always explain why the rule itself causes it. That's where the 3rd mark usually lies.