Anti-Defection Law: Tenth Schedule and Its Working
July 19, 2026
TOPIC CLASSIFICATION
Subject: Indian Polity & Governance
Sub-area: Parliament, State Legislature — Tenth Schedule
Difficulty: Medium
Weightage: Moderate-High (1–2 Prelims + Mains on political stability)
EXAMINER REASONING
Trap: Thinking the Anti-Defection Law is a constitutional amendment (it is — 52nd Amendment, 1985, added Tenth Schedule).
Most confused: Speaker vs Governor vs President — who decides disqualification? (Speaker/Chairman of the House).
Key anchor: Tenth Schedule, Constitution of India — provides grounds for disqualification on defection.
Current affairs hook: Maharashtra political crisis (2022–24); Eknath Shinde — disqualification petitions pending; cross-voting in 2024 Rajya Sabha elections.
Mains hinge: "The Anti-Defection Law has failed to prevent defections and has instead curbed dissent within parties. Critically examine."
Core Concept
The Tenth Schedule (52nd Amendment Act, 1985) was added to combat the growing problem of political defections. It provides for disqualification of MPs/MLAs on grounds of defection.
Grounds for Disqualification (Paragraph 2)
Voluntarily giving up membership of political party
Voting/abstaining from voting contrary to party whip — unless condoned within 15 days
Independent member — joining a political party after election
Nominated member — joining a political party after 6 months
Exceptions (Paragraph 4–5)
Party Merger: If 2/3rds of party members agree to merger — not deemed defection
Speaker/Chairman resignation: If elected as Speaker/Chairman, they can rejoin party after demitting office
Split provision (now struck down): Earlier 1/3rd split was exception — struck down in Kihoto Hollohan (1992)
Deciding Authority
Speaker/Chairman of the House is the deciding authority
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): SC held Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review — only at the final stage (not intermediate). However, this was a majority judgment with limited review — the Speaker acts as a tribunal.
Key Facts
52nd Amendment (1985) — added Tenth Schedule
Based on the Committee on Defections (Dinesh Goswami recommendations earlier)
91st Amendment (2003) — barred defectors from holding ministerial office for the remaining term
Kihoto Hollohan (1992): SC upheld Tenth Schedule but gave limited judicial review
Nabam Rebia (2016): SC held Speaker cannot decide disqualification if his own removal resolution is pending
Rajya Sabha: Anti-defection applies — cross-voting in 2024 RS elections led to disqualification of 4 MLAs (Maharashtra)
Over 50 MPs/MLAs disqualified since 1985; many more resignations pre-empting disqualification
PYQ Analysis
Year
Type
Question
Subject
2024
Prelims
Tenth Schedule — which amendment? (52nd)
Polity
2023
Main
Effectiveness of Anti-Defection Law in ensuring party discipline
GS2
2022
Prelims
Kihoto Hollohan — Speaker's power judicially reviewable
Polity
2021
Prelims
91st Amendment — bar on defectors as ministers
Polity
2020
Mains
"Anti-Defection Law is a necessary evil." Discuss
GS2
2019
Prelims
Exception to disqualification — 2/3rds merger
Polity
2018
Mains
Speaker as tribunal under Tenth Schedule — issues
GS2
2017
Prelims
Who decides anti-defection petitions? (Speaker)
Polity
Statement Elimination Guide
"The 52nd Amendment added the Tenth Schedule." → TRUE.
"A split in the party with 1/3rd members is a valid exception to defection." → FALSE after Kihoto Hollohan (1992). Only merger with 2/3rds is valid.
"Speaker's decision on defection is final and cannot be challenged in court." → FALSE. Final decision is subject to judicial review as per Kihoto Hollohan.
"Independent members who join a party after election are not disqualified." → FALSE. Paragraph 3 — independent members joining any party are disqualified.
Current Affairs Hook
2024-25 Developments: Cross-voting in Rajya Sabha elections (Maharashtra, Himachal); disqualification petitions against Eknath Shinde faction pending in SC; calls for strengthening the law by Election Commission.
Recent SC Observations: "Horse-trading continues unabated" — SC noted in 2024; asked Parliament to consider reforms.
State Level: Himachal Pradesh (2024) — Speaker disqualified 6 BJP MLAs for defying whip on budget.
Interlinkages
Speaker's Role: Also discusses judicial review of Speaker's decisions (compare with Speaker under the Constitution, not the Tenth Schedule)
Political Parties: Registration with EC under Section 29A of RPA, 1951
Parliamentary Privileges: Article 105 — defection disqualification vs free speech of MP
91st Amendment (2003): Total ministers capped — linked to anti-defection as check on corruption
Electoral Reforms: Law Commission 255th Report (2015) — recommended disqualification within 1 year, Speaker's power to be transferred to EC
Common Mistakes
Thinking the anti-defection law applies to voting on all bills (it applies only to matters where party issues whip — generally government bills, confidence motions)
Believing the Governor decides disqualification (Speaker does)
Assuming the 91st Amendment replaced the Tenth Schedule (it amended Articles 75/164 to bar defectors as ministers, supplementing the Schedule)
Thinking all defectors are automatically disqualified (many resign before Speaker decides)
Revision Snapshot
52nd Amendment, 1985 → Tenth Schedule
Grounds: Voluntarily give up membership; vote against whip (unless condoned in 15 days)