Rebel TMC MPs merge with Nationalist Citizens Party, to ‘collaborate with NDA’: Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar

A rebel faction of Lok Sabha MPs, expelled from a regional party, formally notified the Lok Sabha Speaker of their merger with a lesser-known registered part...

What Happened

A rebel faction of Lok Sabha MPs, expelled from a regional party, formally notified the Lok Sabha Speaker of their merger with a lesser-known registered party — the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI) — a registered but unrecognised party from Tripura.
The rebel group claimed that their numbers exceeded the two-thirds threshold of the parent party's total Lok Sabha strength, making the merger constitutionally valid under Para 4 of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law).
Approximately 20 out of 29 Lok Sabha MPs from the parent party are reported to have joined the rebel faction, well above the two-thirds mark (approximately 19–20 MPs needed).
The parent party's leadership wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker contesting the merger, asserting that the Constitution does not permit the formation of a separate group within an existing party's parliamentary wing and urging that the rebels be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.
The Speaker notified the merger application; the decision on recognition and disqualification is pending and will be subject to judicial review.

Static Topic Bridges

Tenth Schedule — Anti-Defection Law

The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985. It is anchored under Articles 102(2) and 191(2) for Parliament and State Legislatures respectively, and provides for disqualification of members who defect from the party on whose ticket they were elected.

Para 2 — Grounds for disqualification: (i) voluntarily giving up party membership, or (ii) voting/abstaining contrary to party directions (whip) without permission.
Para 4 — Merger exception: A member is NOT disqualified if their original political party merges with another party AND at least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party consent to the merger. Both conditions must be satisfied — a merger of the original party AND support from two-thirds of the legislature party members (the "twin test").
The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 omitted Para 3 (which had allowed a "split" by one-third of members), retaining only the merger exception under Para 4.
The Tenth Schedule has 8 paragraphs in total.

Connection to this news: The rebel faction is invoking Para 4, claiming that their numbers cross the two-thirds mark of the legislative party, making the merger with NCPI valid and shielding them from disqualification.

91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 — Closing the "Split" Loophole

The original 1985 law permitted a "split" (para 3) whereby one-third of a legislative party's members could break away without facing disqualification. This provision was widely abused to trigger floor crossings and topple governments.

Omitted by the 91st Amendment, 2003 (effective 2004).
After 2003, the only valid escape from disqualification is a merger (Para 4) — which requires two-thirds support, not one-third.
Anti-defection provisions now apply to the total strength of the legislative party, not just those present and voting.

Connection to this news: The rebel strategy of invoking a "merger" rather than a "split" is a direct consequence of the 2003 amendment closing the easier one-third split route.

Role of the Lok Sabha Speaker under the Tenth Schedule

Under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule, the Presiding Officer (Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha) is the sole authority to decide disqualification petitions. The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal in these matters.

The Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review — a principle settled in the landmark Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992) by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
In Kihoto Hollohan, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the anti-defection law but struck down the provision (para 7) that made the Speaker's decision final and non-justiciable, as it violated the doctrine of judicial review (Articles 136, 226, 227).
The Speaker cannot decide the petition while still holding the position of Speaker within certain timelines per Supreme Court directions in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016), which held that a Speaker facing a removal motion cannot hear disqualification petitions.
There is no fixed time limit in the Tenth Schedule for the Speaker to decide; the Supreme Court in various cases has urged expeditious disposal.

Connection to this news: The Lok Sabha Speaker must decide whether the merger is valid under Para 4 and, if not, disqualify the rebel MPs under Para 2. The decision is challengeable in the Supreme Court or a High Court by way of judicial review.

Twin Test for a Valid Merger — How Courts Assess Para 4 Claims

The Supreme Court has laid down that a merger under Para 4 requires satisfaction of two cumulative conditions: 1. The original political party must have merged with another political party (i.e., a merger at the party level, not just the legislature level). 2. At least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party must consent to the merger.

A merger only at the legislature party level (MPs/MLAs deciding to join another party) without a corresponding merger of the original political party is constitutionally insufficient.
The NCPI (Nationalist Citizens Party of India) — which the rebels are merging into — is a registered but unrecognised regional party from Tripura that received just 822 combined votes in the 2023 Tripura state elections.
Critics argue that merging with a shell party to engineer a "valid" merger circumvents the spirit of the anti-defection law.

Connection to this news: The parent party's challenge rests precisely on this twin test — arguing that a real party-level merger has not occurred and that the rebels are exploiting a loophole to avoid disqualification.

Key Facts & Data

Tenth Schedule inserted by: 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985
Constitutional articles involved: Articles 102(2) and 191(2)
Merger threshold (Para 4): Two-thirds of the legislative party
Split provision (Para 3): Abolished by 91st Amendment, 2003
Landmark case on Speaker's powers: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Speaker's decision subject to judicial review
Speaker acts as: quasi-judicial tribunal under Para 6 of Tenth Schedule
NCPI: Registered but unrecognised party from Tripura; received 822 combined votes in 2023 Tripura elections
Total Lok Sabha seats won by parent party (2024): 29; two-thirds threshold: approximately 19–20 MPs
Rebel MPs who joined NCPI: approximately 20