Anti-Defection Law

Why in News?

The anti-defection law has attracted national attention with Raghav Chadha, a member of Rajya Sabha belonging to the AAP, and three others leaving AAP to join the BJP.

• Anti-Defection law – It was enacted in 1985 & inserted in the Constitution through the 52^nd Constitutional Amendment Act as the Tenth Schedule.
• Purpose – For preventing political defection where legislators elected on a party ticket leave that party to join the other party.
• It lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection.
• Applicable – The law applies to both Parliament & State assemblies.
• Role of the Presiding Officer – The disqualification of members is decided by the Presiding Officer of the Parliament/legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House.
• Grounds of Defection
  • If he/she voluntarily gives up the membership of his party.
  • If he/she disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote, this implies that a legislator defying (abstaining or voting against) the party whip on any issue can lose his membership of the House.
  • If a nominated member joins a political party after 6 months of being elected.
  • If any independently elected member joins any political party.
• Exception – The law allows a party to merge with or into another party provided that at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger.
  • 91^st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 – It eliminates the 1/3rd "split" exception, requiring a 2/3rd merger to avoid disqualification.
• Time Limit – The law does not specify a period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification plea.
• Judicial Review – The presiding officer's decision on the legitimacy of reasons for disqualification or defection is subject to judicial review.
• Key Judicial findings 
  • Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992) – The SC ruled that the Speaker's decision was subject to judicial review on grounds of malafides, violation of constitutional mandate, non-compliance with principles of natural justice, etc.
  • Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) – The Court ruled that the Speaker must act as a neutral adjudicator, and an MP/MLA can be disqualified without formally resigning if their conduct shows defection.
  • Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) – The Court held that the Speaker cannot employ delaying tactics and has to decide the disqualification petition within a reasonable period.
  • Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025) – The SC ruled the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly does not have constitutional immunity under Articles 122/212 when deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.
  • Also, directed the Telangana Speaker to conclude all 10 disqualification proceedings within three months.

References

1. Indian Express | Split in AAP 6 MPs joins BJP
2. PRS | Anti-defection law