Anti-Defection Law

• 04 Aug 2025

For Prelims: Tenth Schedule, Judicial review, Supreme Court,  Speaker , Members of Legislative Assembly,  

For Mains: Anti-Defection Law, Statutory, regulatory, and various quasi-judicial bodies, Separation of powers between various organs, Amendments. 

Source:IE 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court (SC) of India, in the case of Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana (2025), criticized the Telangana Assembly Speaker for the delayed decisions on disqualification petitions against Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who defected in 2024.  

• The SC set a three-month deadline for the Speaker to conclude the proceedings, reigniting a larger debate on the effectiveness of India’s anti-defection law.

Note: Defection means a conscious abandonment of party allegiance or duty. 

What is the Anti-Defection Law? 

• About: In post-Independence India, frequent defections led to political instability. The phrase “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” became popular in the 1960s after a Haryana MLA switched parties multiple times in a single day. 
  • To address this issue, the Anti-Defection Law was introduced as the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985. 
    • It aimed to stop political defections for personal gain. It applies to both Parliament and State Assemblies. 
  • The 91st Amendment Act (2003) amended the anti-defection law by scrapping the one-third split provision, allowing mergers only if two-thirds of a party’s members agreed, and disqualifying defectors from holding ministerial or paid political posts until they are re-elected. 
• Grounds for Disqualification:  Voluntarily give up party membership (can be inferred from conduct, not just resignation).  
  • Voting or abstaining from voting against the party whip can lead to disqualification. 
  • A legislator can further be disqualified if he is an independently elected member and joins a political party. 
  • A nominated member is disqualified if they join a political party after six months of becoming a legislator. 
• Exceptions to Disqualification: A party can merge with another if two-thirds of its legislators agree, with no disqualification for those who merge or stay. 
  • No disqualification for Speaker/Chairman/Deputy Chairman resigning from the party to remain neutral. 
• Role of the Presiding Officer: Disqualification cases are decided by the Speaker/Chairman.  

What are the Criticisms of the Anti-Defection Law? 

• Curb on Dissent: It restricts legislators from voting based on their conscience or representing their constituents if it goes against the party line. 
  • Party leaders can suppress internal debate by threatening disqualification, discouraging free expression within parties. 
• Speaker’s Bias: The Speaker, often from the ruling party, decides disqualification cases, raising concerns about neutrality and delays. 
• No Fixed Time Limit: There’s no legally binding time frame for the Speaker to decide on disqualification cases, allowing for strategic delays. 
• Horse Trading: Defection is allowed if two-thirds of a party's members agree to switch sides. This enables opportunistic and unethical mergers or splits, encourages horse trading and weakens political stability. 
• Lack of Transparency in Party Whips: Party whips are issued to ensure party discipline, but their communication is often opaque, leading to disputes over whether members were properly informed, especially in crucial votes.

What has been the Supreme Court’s Stance on Anti-Defection Case? 

• Timely Decision: In Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors (2020), the SC directed Speakers to decide defection cases within 3 months and suggested an independent tribunal to ensure neutrality and speed. 
  • The SC noted that delaying disqualification proceedings violates the intent of Tenth Schedule and undermines trust in the Speaker’s office by failing to uphold the standard of timely decision-making. 
• Speaker’s Neutral Role: The SC in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) held that the Speaker should act as a neutral adjudicator, not influenced by political affiliations.  
  • This judgment also clarified that an MP/MLA can be disqualified even without formally resigning from their party. 
• Judicial Review: In Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992), the SC ruled that the Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review. 
  • This means Courts can intervene in the Speaker’s decision if there’s mala fide intent, procedural lapse, or constitutional violation, ensuring fairness and transparency. 
• Call for Reforms: The SC in Padi Kaushik Reddy v The State of Telangana (2025) urged Parliament to review the Speaker’s role in defection cases and called for reforms to ensure the anti-defection law is timely and fair. 

How Can India Strengthen its Anti-Defection Law? 

• Limit the Law’s Scope: Apply disqualification only to votes that affect government stability, like no-confidence motions or budget votes, to protect independent thinking. 
• Shift Decision-Making Power: Transfer the authority to decide disqualification cases from the Speaker to an independent body (like the Election Commission), to reduce political bias. 
  • The 2^nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended that defection cases be decided by the President or Governor on Election Commission's advice. 
• Set a Clear Time Limit: Introduce a strict deadline for deciding defection cases to prevent delays and misuse. 
• Promote Intra-Party Democracy: Encourage internal party debates and reduce top-down decision-making, as recommended by the 170th Law Commission Report. 
• Stronger Enforcement and Transparency: As recommended by committees like the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), Hashim Abdul Halim Committee (1994), and the Law Commission Reports (1999 & 2015), defection proceedings should be made time-bound, transparent, and open to public scrutiny to build trust, ensure accountability, and prevent misuse of the Anti-Defection Law. 
• Transparency in Issuing Whips: Mandate public notice of party whips through newspapers or electronic communication. 
  • This ensures all members are adequately informed and disputes over party directives can be more easily resolved. 

Drishti Mains Question:

Critically evaluate the effectiveness of the Anti-Defection Law in curbing political opportunism.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQ) 

Prelims:

Q. Which one of the following Schedules of the Constitution of India contains provisions regarding anti-defection? (2014)

(a) Second Schedule 
(b) Fifth Schedule 
(c) Eighth Schedule  
(d) Tenth Schedule 

Ans: (d) 

---

Mains:

The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law which was legislated but with a different intention? (2013)