TMC Split Tests Tenth Schedule's Merger Provisions and Anti-Defection Law

Indian Express - Explained · 19 Jun 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

20 rebel TMC MPs merged with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), triggering a constitutional debate on whether legislative majority alone suffices for merger under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, or if the original political party must also merge.

Key points

Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, aims to curb political defections but faces interpretation challenges in merger cases like the current TMC split.

Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule allows MPs to avoid disqualification if not less than two-thirds of the legislative party agrees to merge with another party, but the TMC leadership argues this requires the original political party's merger, not just legislative majority.

Original Political Party vs Legislative Party: The dispute hinges on whether Paragraph 4 requires proof of the TMC's organizational merger with NCPI, or if the two-thirds support among Lok Sabha MPs alone suffices, highlighting a key ambiguity in the Schedule's drafting.

[GS2-Polity] This connects to GS2's 'Parliament and State Legislatures' topic, illustrating how judicial interpretations (like Subhash Desai case) shape anti-defection law's implementation and parliamentary ethics.

91st Amendment Act (2003) deleted the 'split' provision (Paragraph 3) that allowed one-third defections, raising the threshold to two-thirds to prevent engineered defections, making Paragraph 4 the only legal route now.

Goa Precedent (Girish Chodankar case): The Bombay High Court upheld that two-thirds legislative support alone constitutes merger, without requiring the original party's organizational merger, a stance the TMC rebels are relying on.

Subhash Desai Case (2023): The Supreme Court ruled that the power to appoint whip and leader rests with the political party, not the legislative faction, a principle the TMC leadership cites to counter the rebels' claims.

[GS3-Governance] The recurring splits in parties like TMC and Shiv Sena expose systemic flaws in the anti-defection law, undermining stable governance and enabling opportunistic political realignments.

Way Forward: Parliament should amend the Tenth Schedule to explicitly define 'merger' requirements, establish an independent tribunal for defection cases, and mandate time-bound decisions by Speakers to prevent prolonged political uncertainty.

Key terms

Tenth Schedule

The anti-defection law introduced via the 52nd Amendment (1985) to curb political defections. It disqualifies MPs/MLAs who voluntarily give up party membership or violate whip, with exceptions under Paragraph 4 for mergers with two-thirds support. Its UPSC relevance lies in testing constitutional morality, parliamentary stability, and judicial interpretations like Kihoto Hollohan case.

Original Political Party

Defined in the Tenth Schedule as the party that set up the candidate for election, registered with the Election Commission. It matters for UPSC as it determines the legitimate authority for whip issuance and party leadership disputes, a recurring theme in GS2 Polity questions.

Legislative Party

The subset of a political party's members elected to a specific House (Lok Sabha/Assembly). UPSC relevance stems from its distinction from the original party, creating legal ambiguities in defection cases, as seen in recent splits in Shiv Sena and TMC.

91st Amendment Act (2003)

Constitutional amendment that deleted Paragraph 3 (allowing splits with one-third support) from the Tenth Schedule, raising the merger threshold to two-thirds to prevent bulk defections. Important for UPSC as it reflects evolving legislative responses to political instability.