Adjournment Motion Seeks Discussion on a New Anti-Defection Law: Tenth Schedule Reform Debate
A notice for an adjournment motion was submitted in the Lok Sabha seeking to suspend Question Hour, Zero Hour, and other listed business for an urgent discussion on the "contours of a new Anti-Defection Law"
The notice proposed a law that would proscribe mass political defections driven by opportunism while simultaneously protecting the constitutional right of elected representatives to express principled dissent
Several other legislative items, including the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, were listed on the day's business
The notice reflects a recurring legislative concern over whether the existing Tenth Schedule adequately distinguishes opportunistic floor-crossing from genuine political realignment
The Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law): 52nd Amendment, 1985
The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, to disqualify members of Parliament and state legislatures who defect from the party on whose ticket they were elected, aiming to curb the political instability caused by large-scale floor-crossing in the 1960s-70s.
The proposed new law would operate within or alongside this Tenth Schedule framework; the core policy question is whether current disqualification triggers and enforcement timelines are adequate to stop coordinated mass defections.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
This Constitution Bench judgment upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule as a reasonable restriction on membership rights but held that the Speaker's adjudicatory function is subject to judicial review, correcting an attempt by the original law to insulate such decisions entirely.
Any new anti-defection framework would have to operate consistently with this precedent — a law that tries to exclude judicial review of disqualification decisions, as the original Tenth Schedule attempted, would face the same constitutional infirmity.
91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003: Closing the "Split" Loophole
The 91st Amendment tightened the Tenth Schedule by removing the "split" exception that had earlier protected one-third of a legislature party's members from disqualification if they broke away together, restricting the surviving exception to a genuine two-thirds merger.
The proposed new law's target — "opportunistic mass defections" — is precisely the pattern that survived the 2003 tightening, since a coordinated exit by two-thirds of a legislature party can still claim the merger exception even without ideological or policy grounds.
Speaker's Adjudicatory Delay and Time-Bound Disqualification
Litigation over disqualification petitions has repeatedly turned on delay by Speakers in deciding cases, an issue on which the Tenth Schedule itself is silent regarding a decision deadline.
Key Details
- The Tenth Schedule prescribes no fixed time limit within which the Speaker must decide a disqualification petition, and prolonged inaction has allowed defecting members to continue functioning, sometimes for months or years, before a ruling
- In Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Speaker remains the sole authority to adjudicate disqualification petitions but emphasised the constitutional expectation of prompt action
- Various parliamentary committees, including earlier Law Commission reports, have recommended either a fixed timeline (such as three months) for Speaker decisions or shifting the adjudicatory function to an independent tribunal or the Election Commission to reduce conflict-of-interest concerns, since the Speaker is typically drawn from the ruling side
Any redesign of the anti-defection framework, as sought in the adjournment motion, would need to address this enforcement gap, since a well-drafted disqualification ground is ineffective without a binding timeline for decision.
- Tenth Schedule inserted by: 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985
- Split exception (one-third) removed by: 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 (in force 2004)
- Surviving merger exception threshold: two-thirds of legislature party members
- Landmark case upholding Tenth Schedule but striking down ouster of judicial review: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), 3:2 majority
- Deciding authority for disqualification: Speaker (Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha/Legislative Council) under Paragraph 6
- No statutory/constitutional deadline currently exists for a Speaker's decision on a disqualification petition
- Adjournment motion in Lok Sabha requires support of at least 50 members for admission and is available only in the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha