111 MPs, MLAs changed parties after winning elections since 2022: ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reported that 111 sitting MPs and MLAs changed their party affiliation after winning elections to Parliament or state assemblies between 2022 and 2026.
The cases break down as 26 Lok Sabha members, 7 Rajya Sabha members and 78 MLAs, covering individual defections, party mergers, resignations followed by bypoll wins, and disqualifications followed by re-election.
Nagaland recorded the highest number of switches among states (32, all MLAs), followed by West Bengal (20, all Lok Sabha members); most of the Nagaland cases were linked to a broader realignment among regional parties in the state assembly.
ADR recommended structural changes to the anti-defection framework, including shifting the power to decide disqualification petitions away from the presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) to the President (for MPs) and Governors (for MLAs), setting a fixed timeline for such decisions, and barring defectors from holding public office until re-elected.
The Tenth Schedule — Anti-Defection Law
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution lays down the grounds on which an elected member can be disqualified for defection. It was introduced to curb the political instability caused by large-scale, opportunistic party-switching in the years before 1985.
All 111 cases documented by ADR are, in principle, tested against the Tenth Schedule's disqualification grounds; the data illustrates how frequently the law's exceptions (mergers, "voluntarily giving up membership" interpreted loosely) are actually used in practice.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decision
This is the foundational Supreme Court case interpreting the Tenth Schedule, and it is the reason the Speaker's disqualification orders can be challenged in court at all.
ADR's core recommendation — moving disqualification power away from the Speaker — directly revisits the institutional design that Kihoto Hollohan left largely intact (adjudication by a political office-holder, subject only to limited after-the-fact judicial review).
91st Amendment Act, 2003 — Closing the "Split" Loophole
The original 1985 law had a major loophole that allowed one-third of a party's legislators to defect together without penalty; this was removed to close the most common route of large-scale defection.
Key Details
- The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 (effective 2004) deleted the Tenth Schedule's "split" provision (paragraph 3), which had earlier protected a faction comprising at least one-third of a party's legislators from disqualification.
- After 2003, only a "merger" is protected — valid when at least two-thirds of a legislature party's members agree to merge with another party.
- The same amendment also capped the size of the Council of Ministers at 15% of the strength of the Lok Sabha or a State Legislative Assembly, to curb defections induced by promises of ministerial berths.
ADR's data shows that "party mergers" remain one of the categories through which legislators switch sides legally under the current two-thirds merger rule, which is why some large-scale realignments (like the one in Nagaland) can occur without triggering disqualification.
Speaker's Delay and Institutional Reform — Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)
This recent Constitution Bench judgment, arising from the 2022 split in the Maharashtra Shiv Sena legislature party, is the most significant recent instance of the Supreme Court itself flagging the same institutional problem ADR is now raising.
Key Details
- The Court reaffirmed that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review per Kihoto Hollohan, and clarified that recognition of a "separate group" by the Election Commission for symbol-allotment purposes (under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968) does not by itself decide the question of disqualification.
- The Bench criticized prolonged delays by Speakers in deciding disqualification petitions and, in follow-up orders, directed specific deadlines for pending cases.
- It urged Parliament to reconsider whether entrusting disqualification decisions to the Speaker — a person elected on a party ticket and dependent on legislative majority — remains the appropriate institutional design.
ADR's recommendation to transfer disqualification power to the President/Governors is a direct policy response to the exact institutional concern the Supreme Court itself articulated in this 2023 judgment, reinforcing that this is an area of active constitutional debate rather than a settled question.
- Total legislators who switched parties (2022–2026): 111 — 26 Lok Sabha, 7 Rajya Sabha, 78 MLAs
- Highest state-wise count: Nagaland (32 cases, all MLAs), followed by West Bengal (20 cases, all Lok Sabha)
- Tenth Schedule inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985
- Split provision (one-third exemption) removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003; only two-thirds mergers are now protected
- Landmark cases: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — judicial review of Speaker's orders; Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023) — flagged Speaker delays and adjudicator design
- Council of Ministers capped at 15% of House strength by the 91st Amendment, 2003