Tenth Schedule's Anti-Defection Law Faces Scrutiny Amid Shiv Sena and TMC Defections

Indian Express - Opinion · 23 Jun 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

Recent defections in Shiv Sena (UBT) and TMC, disguised as mergers, highlight systemic flaws in the Tenth Schedule's anti-defection law, raising questions about its efficacy and impact on parliamentary democracy.

Key points

Tenth Schedule was introduced via the 52nd Amendment in 1985 to curb political defections by disqualifying members who defect or defy party whip, except in cases of split or merger.

Kihoto Hollohan case upheld the Tenth Schedule's validity, emphasizing party discipline over individual rights to freedom of speech and dissent, reinforcing its constitutional anchorage.

The 91st Amendment (2003) raised the threshold for defection as a split from 1/3rd to 2/3rd of the legislative party's strength, aiming to reduce unprincipled defections.

Recent defections in Shiv Sena (UBT) and TMC, framed as mergers with smaller parties like NCPI, exploit loopholes in the Tenth Schedule, undermining its original intent.

[GS2-Governance] The Tenth Schedule has inadvertently fostered a 'high command culture', eroding intra-party democracy and suppressing dissent within political parties.

[GS3-Economy] Political instability caused by defections disrupts governance, affecting policy implementation and economic reforms, as seen in Maharashtra's recent crises.

The Tenth Schedule's enforcement is often delayed, with Speakers frequently accused of partisan decisions, as seen in the prolonged disqualification cases of defecting MLAs.

This connects to GS2-Polity as it raises fundamental questions about balancing party discipline with democratic dissent, a recurring theme in UPSC mains questions on parliamentary ethics.

Way Forward: Reform the Tenth Schedule to include time-bound disqualification proceedings, empower the Election Commission to adjudicate defection cases, and introduce recall mechanisms to hold defectors accountable to constituents.

Key terms

Tenth Schedule

A constitutional provision added by the 52nd Amendment Act (1985) to combat political defections by disqualifying legislators who switch parties or violate party whip, except in cases of mergers or splits involving 2/3rd members. It addresses UPSC-relevant issues of parliamentary stability versus individual conscience.

Kihoto Hollohan Case

A 1992 Supreme Court judgment that upheld the Tenth Schedule's validity, ruling it did not violate freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). This landmark case is crucial for understanding judicial interpretation of anti-defection law in GS2 Polity.

52nd Amendment Act

The 1985 constitutional amendment that introduced the Tenth Schedule, reflecting India's response to the 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram' phenomenon of frequent party-switching. It's significant for UPSC as it marks a major shift in India's parliamentary practices.

91st Amendment Act

The 2003 amendment that strengthened the Tenth Schedule by increasing the split threshold to 2/3rd members and barring defectors from holding ministerial posts. This is vital for GS2 questions on constitutional reforms to curb political opportunism.