Om Birla clears merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with Shinde-led Sena
The Lok Sabha Speaker approved the merger of six members of a legislative party with another recognised party in the House, formally recognising the merged group as belonging to the receiving party for House purposes.
The Speaker's order was issued under the merger provision of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs disqualification on grounds of defection.
A separate request concerning the seating and recognition of twenty members of another legislative party is reported to be under the Speaker's consideration, with no final order issued.
The decision affects the numerical strength and seating arrangement of the parties concerned within the Lok Sabha but does not by itself alter the ruling/opposition composition of the House.
The Tenth Schedule and the Anti-Defection Law
The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, to curb defections by legislators after being elected on a party ticket. It disqualifies a member of a House who voluntarily gives up membership of their political party, or votes/abstains contrary to a party whip without prior permission (and without condonation within 15 days). The Speaker (in the Lok Sabha) or Chairman (in the Rajya Sabha), and equivalent presiding officers in state legislatures, adjudicates disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.
Key Details
- Inserted by the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985.
- Disqualification grounds: voluntarily giving up party membership; defying a whip without the party's prior permission or subsequent condonation.
- The original Schedule also had a "split" exception (paragraph 3, requiring one-third of a legislature party) which was deleted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003; only the merger exception under paragraph 4 now survives.
The Speaker's approval is a formal exercise of this Tenth Schedule adjudicatory power, applied specifically to the merger exception rather than a defection complaint.
The Merger Exception — Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule
Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule provides that a "merger" of a legislature party with another party is deemed to have taken place only if at least two-thirds of the members of that legislature party have agreed to the merger; members who so agree are protected from disqualification, and the provision extends the same protection to any member who does not accept the merger but forms a separate group. This is a narrow, numerically defined exception — unlike a defection complaint, a merger claim requires the Speaker to verify the two-thirds threshold before recognising it, rather than examine intent or grounds for leaving the party.
Key Details
- Two-thirds of the legislature party's members must agree for a valid "deemed merger" under paragraph 4.
- The Speaker's role is adjudicatory/quasi-judicial: verifying the numerical threshold and satisfying itself that a genuine merger (not a mere faction switch) has occurred.
- Recent High Court rulings interpreting "two-thirds of the legislature party" as merely two-thirds of an original party's remaining legislators (rather than the whole party) have been controversial, as critics argue it allows a breakaway faction to claim a "merger" without any real organisational merger occurring.
The six-member merger reported here would need to satisfy this two-thirds test relative to the legislature party's total strength in the Lok Sabha for the Speaker to validly recognise it as a "deemed merger" rather than a disqualifiable defection.
Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decisions — Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule but held that the Speaker's decision on disqualification (and, by extension, on recognising a merger) is a quasi-judicial function subject to judicial review — though only on limited grounds such as mala fide exercise, perversity, violation of natural justice, or jurisdictional error, and only after the Speaker has given a final order (not mid-proceeding).
Key Details
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 SCC (1) 309 — Tenth Schedule held constitutional; Speaker's order is quasi-judicial and reviewable, but courts cannot interfere before the Speaker's final decision.
- Judicial review grounds are narrow: mala fides, perversity, or violation of constitutional mandates — not a full merits appeal.
Any dispute over whether the six-member merger genuinely meets the two-thirds threshold, or over the Speaker's pending decision on the twenty-member group, would be tested against this limited judicial review standard rather than a full re-examination by courts.
- Six members of a legislature party were formally merged with another recognised party in the Lok Sabha following the Speaker's approval.
- A separate matter involving twenty members of another legislative party remains under the Speaker's consideration, without a final order.
- The Tenth Schedule's merger exception (paragraph 4) requires agreement of two-thirds of a legislature party's members; the split exception (paragraph 3) was removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003.
- The Tenth Schedule was inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, and its constitutionality was upheld in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).