TMC vs TMC: Anti-Defection Law in Focus
UPSC-standard MCQs with explanations, trap analysis, and approach guide. Answer after the test — not before.
1
Easy
1
Medium
1
Hard
Practice this set
3 questions · full analysis after submission · no sign-up required
Article summary
In a dramatic intra-party rupture, 59 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLAs in West Bengal have backed suspended leader Ritabrata Banerjee as the legislature party leader, directly challenging the Mamata Banerjee-led party establishment. The TMC currently holds 80 seats in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, making the two-thirds threshold for a valid split under the Tenth Schedule exactly 54 MLAs — a bar the rebels claim to have crossed. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985), disqualifies members who voluntarily give up party membership or vote against party directions, but exempts a faction if it commands at least two-thirds of the original legislature party. In response, the TMC dissolved all its legislative panels, signalling an aggressive counter-move to isolate the rebels. The episode revives critical UPSC-relevant debates around the Speaker's quasi-judicial role, the definition of a 'merger', and whether the anti-defection law adequately balances party discipline with legislative independence.
What this tests
Sample questions — answers revealed after test
Q1. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003) made a significant change to the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Which of the following correctly describes that change?
Q2. A state legislative party has 80 members. Following an internal dispute, 59 members (73.75%) publicly support a rebel leader, issue a whip of their own, and vote against the direction of the original party organisation — but do NOT formally join any other political party. The original party files disqualification petitions against all 59 rebels before the Speaker. Which of the following statements best describes the constitutional position of the 59 rebels under the Tenth Schedule as it stands after the 91st Amendment?
Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and the constitutional issues raised by large-scale legislative defections: 1. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but ruled that the Speaker's decision on disqualification is not subject to judicial review. 2. The 91st Amendment (2003) deleted the 'split' exemption from the Tenth Schedule, after which a faction — however large — within a legislature party can avoid disqualification only by formally merging with another political party. 3. The Nabam Rebia (2016) judgment raised the question of whether a Speaker against whom a notice of removal is pending can adjudicate disqualification petitions, pointing to a structural conflict of interest. 4. Under the Tenth Schedule, a member is disqualified if they voluntarily give up party membership, but abstaining from voting on a party whip does not constitute a ground for disqualification. How many of the above statements are correct?