| Relevance: GS-II Indian Constitution · Anti-Defection & the Tenth Schedule |
Source: Tenth Schedule debate, June 2026 |
1 · What happened
|
Around 20 Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MPs have told the Lok Sabha Speaker (Om Birla) that they wish to merge with the National Citizens Party of India. They claim more than two-thirds of TMC’s MPs support the move, so they should be safe from disqualification under the law’s “merger” rule.
There are two twists. The party they wish to join holds no seats of its own, and the TMC leadership opposes the move — arguing that only the party itself, not the MPs acting alone, can decide to merge.
This echoes an April 2026 episode where 7 of 10 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MPs used the same two-thirds figure. The core question now: can two-thirds of legislators, by themselves, manufacture a valid “merger”?
|
2 · What is the Anti-Defection Law?
| The Anti-Defection Law lives in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. It was added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 to stop elected members from switching parties for personal gain after winning an election. |
Why it was needed: in the 1960s–70s, members changed sides so often that governments kept collapsing — the famous “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” era. A member can now be disqualified mainly if they:
- Voluntarily give up their party membership (this can be inferred from conduct, even without a formal resignation), or
- Defy the party whip — vote against, or stay away from, their party’s direction in the House without permission.
3 · How the loophole shifted: from “split” to “merger”
| 1 |
1985 — the law is born. The Tenth Schedule sets out to end party-hopping and bring stability. |
| 2 |
The old loophole — “split”. The original Paragraph 3 protected a breakaway group if it had at least one-third of the legislature party. This was widely abused to stage engineered splits. |
| 3 |
2003 — the fix. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act deleted Paragraph 3, closing the split route. It also capped ministers at 15% of House strength, removing a big reward for defection. |
| 4 |
The new loophole — “merger”. Paragraph 4 (still active) protects a merger if two-thirds of legislators agree. So factions now gather a two-thirds bloc and call it a “merger” — exactly today’s row. |
4 · The legal knot: two kinds of “party”
To understand the dispute, you must separate two things the Constitution treats as different:
- Original political party: the whole organisation outside the House — its president, committees and ordinary members.
- Legislature party: only the elected members (MPs or MLAs) of that party inside a particular House.
A valid merger is widely read as a “twin test”: (1) the original party must actually merge, and (2) at least two-thirds of its legislators must agree. The Supreme Court’s 2023 Maharashtra ruling (Subhash Desai case) stressed that the two are distinct — so legislators may not be able to claim a merger on their own. The rival reading says a two-thirds bloc in the House is enough by itself. This unsettled gap is what the courts must now clear.
5 · Who decides — and the weak spot
- The Speaker decides: the Speaker (or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) rules on disqualification, acting like a tribunal. The flaw — the Speaker usually belongs to the ruling party, so rulings can be delayed or one-sided.
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): the Supreme Court upheld the law but held that the Speaker’s decision is open to judicial review (court check) to stop bias or bad faith.
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020): the Court said Speakers should ideally decide within three months, and suggested an independent tribunal headed by a retired judge instead of the Speaker.
- Reform ideas: the 170th Law Commission (1999) wanted the merger exemption removed; the NCRWC (2002) said defectors should resign and seek a fresh public mandate.
| UPSC Value Box |
| Tenth Schedule |
The Anti-Defection Law; added by the 52nd Amendment, 1985. |
| 91st Amendment, 2003 |
Deleted Paragraph 3 (split); capped ministers at 15% of House strength. |
| Paragraph 3 (split) |
Old exemption for a one-third breakaway. Now omitted. |
| Paragraph 4 (merger) |
Active exemption; protects a merger if two-thirds of legislators agree. |
| Twin test |
Valid merger = (1) original party merges + (2) two-thirds of legislators agree. |
| Deciding authority |
Speaker / Chairman; decision subject to judicial review. |
| Kihoto Hollohan (1992) |
Upheld the law; allowed judicial review of the Speaker’s order. |
| Keisham Meghachandra (2020) |
Speakers to decide within ~3 months; proposed an independent tribunal. |
|
|
Q. With reference to the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule), consider the following statements:
- It was added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.
- The 91st Amendment Act, 2003 deleted the “merger” provision, leaving only the “split” exemption in force.
- The Speaker’s (or Chairman’s) decision on disqualification is subject to judicial review by the courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 |
Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
- Statement 1 — Correct: The Tenth Schedule was inserted by the 52nd Amendment in 1985.
- Statement 2 — Incorrect (the trap): It is the reverse. The 91st Amendment deleted the “split” provision (Paragraph 3); the “merger” provision (Paragraph 4) remains in force.
- Statement 3 — Correct: Since Kihoto Hollohan (1992), the Speaker’s decision can be reviewed by the courts to check bias or bad faith.
|
