The Anti-Defection Law Under Strain: Why Legislator Defections Keep Testing the Tenth Schedule
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
A political controversy in West Bengal — with a Trinamool Congress MP alleging that a wave of resignations and defections to the BJP presents a 'dirty picture' of the state's political culture — is, beneath the rhetoric, a live illustration of the strains on India's anti-defection law. That law, contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, disqualifies a legislator who voluntarily gives up party membership or votes against the party whip, while exempting a 'merger' of two-thirds of a party's legislators. The original 'split' exception was removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, which also barred disqualified defectors from holding ministerial office and capped the council of ministers at 15% of the legislature. Yet defections persist through workarounds — most notably timed resignations that trigger by-elections, allowing legislators to switch sides without technically being 'disqualified'. The role of the Speaker as the sole adjudicator, and the delays that role produces, have drawn repeated Supreme Court criticism, from Kihoto Hollohan (1992) to Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020). For UPSC aspirants, the row is a ready-made case study of the Tenth Schedule's design, loopholes and reform debate.
What this tests
Sample questions — answers revealed after test
Q1. With reference to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements is correct?
Q2. In a Legislative Assembly, eight of the ten members of a legislature party agree to merge their party with another party. Separately, a member of a different party resigns their seat, contests the resulting by-election on another party's ticket, and is re-elected. Under the Tenth Schedule, which one of the following correctly describes the position?
Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the judicial interpretation of the anti-defection law: 1. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule and held that the presiding officer acts as a tribunal whose decisions are subject to judicial review. 2. In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Court held that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months and suggested that Parliament consider an independent tribunal headed by a retired judge. 3. In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994), the Court held that a member 'voluntarily gives up' party membership only upon tendering a formal letter of resignation to the party. Which of the statements given above are correct?