Why this matters now
The law is tested for its grounds, the presiding officer’s role and judicial review, and the 91st Amendment change. It recurs in current affairs whenever defections and disqualifications make news.
Grounds for disqualification
Under the Tenth Schedule, a member is disqualified if they: voluntarily give up membership of their party; vote or abstain against party directions (the whip) without permission; or, for independents, join a party after election (nominated members joining a party after six months). The aim is to prevent unprincipled floor-crossing.
Exceptions
Originally a split (one-third of a party) was exempt — but the 91st Amendment (2003) removed this, so now only a merger (two-thirds of a party agreeing to merge) is protected. The 91st Amendment also capped the Council of Ministers and barred disqualified members from ministerial office.
The deciding authority
The presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides on disqualification. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court held this decision is subject to judicial review. Concerns persist about delays by presiding officers, prompting suggestions to shift the power to an independent body or the ECI/judiciary.
Assessment
The law has reduced casual defections and added stability, but it is criticised for stifling dissent (members must follow the whip), the partisan role and delays of presiding officers, and loopholes (resign-and-rejoin). Reform proposals seek faster, neutral adjudication and a narrower whip.
UPSC angle
Know the grounds, that only a two-thirds merger (not a split) is now exempt (91st Amendment), and that the presiding officer’s decision is subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan).
Frequently asked questions
What is the anti-defection law?
A law in the Tenth Schedule (added by the 52nd Amendment, 1985) that disqualifies legislators who defect from their party.
What did the 91st Amendment change?
It removed the exemption for a one-third “split,” so now only a two-thirds merger is protected from disqualification.
Who decides on disqualification under the anti-defection law?
The presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman), whose decision is subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992).
What are the criticisms of the anti-defection law?
It can stifle legitimate dissent, the presiding officer’s role can be partisan and slow, and loopholes remain.