Criticisms and Reform Proposals for the Tenth Schedule
The Tenth Schedule has attracted sustained criticism for its structural loopholes, particularly the merger exception and the Speaker/Chairman's role as adjudicator.
- Law Commission of India (170th Report): Recommended deletion of the merger exception (then Paragraph 3 — splits; now Paragraph 4 — mergers) to plug the legal route for organised defections.
- Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990): Recommended that disqualification decisions be made by the President/Governor on the advice of the Election Commission, not the Speaker/Chairman.
- 91st Amendment (2003): Deleted the split exception but retained the merger exception — addressing one loophole while leaving another open.
- Critics argue the merger exception "legalises" bulk defections as long as numerical thresholds are met, undermining the law's core purpose of ensuring political stability and voter mandate.
- Some experts have called for an independent tribunal — not the presiding officer of the House — to decide defection cases, to eliminate partisan adjudication.
● Tracked since April 24, 2026 · last seen April 24, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief