|
Anti-Defection Law
The anti-defection law attracts national attention after Raghav Chadha and three others leave AAP to join the BJP. The issue is currently relevant for legislative disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
Anti-Defection Law:
| Dimension | Key Details |
|---|---|
| Enactment | The anti-defection law has been enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act. |
| Constitutional Location | The law is inserted in the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule. |
| Purpose | The law provides for preventing political defection by legislators elected on a party ticket. |
| Applicability | The law applies to both Parliament and State assemblies. |
| Deciding Authority | The Presiding Officer of the House decides disqualification of members based on a petition by any other member of the House. |
| Grounds of Defection | Grounds comprise voluntarily giving up party membership, disobeying party whip, nominated member joining a party after 6 months, and independent member joining a political party. |
| Merger Exception | The law allows merger with another party if at least two-thirds of legislators support the merger. |
| 91st Amendment | The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 eliminates the one-third split exception and requires a two-thirds merger to avoid disqualification. |
| Time Limit | The law does not specify a period for the Presiding Officer to decide a disqualification plea. |
| Judicial Review | The Presiding Officer’s decision on disqualification or defection is subject to judicial review. |
| Kihoto Hollohan Case | Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu, 1992 holds that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, violation of constitutional mandate, and non-compliance with natural justice. |
| Ravi S. Naik Case | Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, 1994 holds that the Speaker must act as a neutral adjudicator and formal resignation is not necessary if conduct shows defection. |
| Keisham Meghachandra Singh Case | Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020 holds that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. |
| Padi Kaushik Reddy Case | Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 holds that the Speaker does not have constitutional immunity under Articles 122 and 212 while deciding Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions. |