Anti-defection law
Context
The Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker, dismissed disqualification petitions filed by the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).
Notices had earlier been issued to 10 MLAs accused of defection after the 2023 Telangana Assembly election.
The BRS approached the Supreme Court of India, alleging inaction by the Speaker.
On November 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the Speaker for not deciding the petitions expeditiously.
Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule)
Constitutional basis
Introduced by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
Inserted the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
Objective:
Curb political defections
Ensure stability of elected governments
Strengthen party discipline
Grounds for disqualification
A legislator is disqualified if he/she:
1. Voluntarily gives up party membership
Includes conduct indicating abandonment of party loyalty, not just formal resignation.
2. Votes or abstains against party whip
Without prior permission of the party.
Not condoned by the party within 15 days.
Independent members
Disqualified if they join any political party after election.
Nominated members
Can join a political party within 6 months of taking seat.
Joining after 6 months attracts disqualification.
Exceptions (after 91st Amendment, 2003)
Merger provision
Disqualification does not apply if:
At least two-thirds of legislators of a party agree to merge with another party.
Important change
Split (one-third rule) was deleted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003.
Deciding authority
Speaker/Chairman of the House decides disqualification.
Acts as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule.
Judicial review
Initially barred, but allowed after judgment in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu.
Courts can review Speaker’s decision on grounds of:
Mala fide
Constitutional violation
Perversity
Major problems with anti-defection law
Speaker’s partisanship: Speaker is a political figure.
Delays in decisions: Used strategically to protect governments.
Weakens legislative accountability:
MPs/MLAs prioritise party over voters.
Stifles dissent:
Even principled disagreement penalised.
Key Supreme Court interventions
Ravi S. Naik vs Union of India
→ Defection can be inferred from conduct.Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker
→ Speaker cannot decide disqualification when notice of his removal is pending.Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs Speaker
→ Suggested 3-month time limit and independent tribunal.
Prelims Practice MCQs
Q. With reference to the anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:
The power to decide on disqualification of a legislator on grounds of defection rests with the Speaker of the House.
Courts are completely barred from reviewing the Speaker’s decision under the Tenth Schedule.
Delay by the Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions has been a subject of judicial scrutiny.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 and 2 only
b) 1 and 3 only
c) 2 and 3 only
d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The Speaker is the deciding authority under the Tenth Schedule.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Judicial review is available (Kihoto Hollohan case).
Statement 3 is correct: Courts have intervened where Speakers delay decisions.