Rajya Sabha Bloc Merger and the Limits of Anti-Defection Law
Seven of the ten Rajya Sabha members belonging to a regional political party resigned from their party and submitted a merger application to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, seeking to merge their legislature party group with the ruling national party.
The group submitted signed letters from all seven members to the Rajya Sabha Chairman on April 24, 2026, formally invoking Paragraph 4 (merger provision) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The departing members constitute 70% of the party's Rajya Sabha legislature group — exceeding the two-thirds threshold required under Paragraph 4 to qualify as a valid legislative merger free from disqualification.
The party remaining behind (three members) immediately announced it would petition the Rajya Sabha Chairman to disqualify the departed members on the ground that joining another party amounts to voluntarily relinquishing membership under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
Legal experts were divided: those supporting the departure argued the two-thirds threshold was validly met, while opponents argued that under Paragraph 4, a "merger" also requires the original political party (not just its legislature wing) to have agreed to the merger — a condition allegedly not satisfied here.
The development leaves the original party with three Rajya Sabha members, reducing its effective parliamentary presence, while the gaining party's standalone strength in the Upper House rises significantly.
Tenth Schedule: Anti-Defection Law
The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, to curb the phenomenon of political defections that had destabilised governments throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. It applies to members of both Houses of Parliament and of State Legislatures.
The seven members argued they satisfy Paragraph 4's two-thirds threshold (7 out of 10 = 70%). The opposing view holds that Paragraph 4 requires not merely the legislature party to agree but also the original political party organisation itself to have decided on a merger — making this legally contestable.
Article 102(2) and the Rajya Sabha Chairman as Adjudicator
Article 102(2) of the Constitution provides that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if they are so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Vice President of India, ex officio) is the designated adjudicating authority for Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions in the Upper House.
The party has announced it will file a disqualification petition before the Rajya Sabha Chairman. The outcome will hinge on whether the Chairman accepts the merger as valid under Paragraph 4 or treats the move as a voluntary relinquishment under Paragraph 2(1)(a).
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Landmark Constitution Bench Judgment
This is the foundational Supreme Court judgment on the constitutional validity and interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, delivered on February 18, 1992 by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Any challenge to the Rajya Sabha Chairman's order — whether it disqualifies or clears the departing members — will be governed by the Kihoto Hollohan precedent: the order is judicially reviewable but courts typically defer to the adjudicator's factual findings.
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.
The current situation illustrates precisely how the merger exception can be used to circumvent the anti-defection law's intent. The debate over whether a "legislature party merger" without an "original party merger" qualifies under Paragraph 4 has renewed calls for a comprehensive review of the Tenth Schedule.
- Tenth Schedule inserted by: Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985
- Merger threshold: Not less than two-thirds of the legislature party members (Paragraph 4, Tenth Schedule)
- Split exception abolished by: Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003
- AAP's Rajya Sabha strength before merger: 10 members
- Members invoking merger: 7 (= 70%, above two-thirds threshold)
- Adjudicating authority (Rajya Sabha): Rajya Sabha Chairman (Vice President of India, ex officio)
- Article 102(2): Constitutional provision incorporating Tenth Schedule disqualification for Parliament members
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu: 1992 Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment upholding Tenth Schedule validity (3:2)
- Paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule: Struck down in Kihoto Hollohan for lack of state ratification under Article 368(2) proviso
- Law Commission 170th Report: Recommended deletion of the merger exception