Score:
9.5/15
Analyze what earned this score 🔥
Topper’s Copy
GS2
Indian Polity
15 marks
"The Tenth Schedule was designed to penalise opportunistic defection, yet the distinction it draws between a 'split' and a 'merger' has become the real determinant of a legislator's political survival." Discuss. Also examine whether vesting disqualification powers in the Speaker compromises the law's neutrality.
Student’s Answer
Evaluation by SuperKalam
Demand of the Question
- Discussion of how split vs merger distinction determines political survival despite anti-defection intent
- Examination of Speaker's disqualification powers and neutrality concerns
- Analysis of law's effectiveness in preventing opportunistic defection
What you wrote:
The Tenth Schedule was created to combat "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" political defections. However, the distinction between a 'split' and a 'merger' and the Speaker's unmonitored power largely leads to compromising the law's neutrality.
The Tenth Schedule was created to combat "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" political defections. However, the distinction between a 'split' and a 'merger' and the Speaker's unmonitored power largely leads to compromising the law's neutrality.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could briefly mention Article 102/191 which provides constitutional basis for disqualification to establish legal foundation.
What you wrote:
1. Split vs. Merger: The Determinant of Political Survival:-
(a) Original Loophole - The 1985 law allowed a 'split' by 1/3rd members, leading to frequent group defections.
(b) The 91st Amendment (2003) - It deleted the split provision, recognized only 'mergers' requiring 2/3rd legislative party approval.
(c) Mass defections - The amendment merely shifted retail defection to wholesale defection.
(d) Survival Instrument - Factions now engineer 2/3rd majorities to bypass disqualifications, capturing power or toppling regimes.
1. Split vs. Merger: The Determinant of Political Survival:-
(a) Original Loophole - The 1985 law allowed a 'split' by 1/3rd members, leading to frequent group defections.
(b) The 91st Amendment (2003) - It deleted the split provision, recognized only 'mergers' requiring 2/3rd legislative party approval.
(c) Mass defections - The amendment merely shifted retail defection to wholesale defection.
(d) Survival Instrument - Factions now engineer 2/3rd majorities to bypass disqualifications, capturing power or toppling regimes.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could include real examples like Madhya Pradesh (2020) where 22 Congress MLAs defected en masse to demonstrate wholesale defection
- Could mention Karnataka political crisis (2019) where MLAs resigned strategically to avoid disqualification while toppling government
- Could explain how merger provision allows entire legislative parties to switch sides (e.g., when smaller parties merge with larger ones post-election)
What you wrote:
2. Speaker's Disqualification Powers: Compromising Neutrality -
(i) Political Allegiance: The Speaker remains a member of the ruling party, creating structural bias.
(ii) Partisan Adjudication - Inherent conflict of interest turns a constitutional post into a political stakeholder.
(iii) The Weapon of Delay: Speakers often stall petitions to let defectors vote, alter House majorities, and sustain governments.
(iv) Judicial Overreach - While Kihoto Hollohan (1992) enabled judicial review, courts usually intervene after political damage is done.
2. Speaker's Disqualification Powers: Compromising Neutrality -
(i) Political Allegiance: The Speaker remains a member of the ruling party, creating structural bias.
(ii) Partisan Adjudication - Inherent conflict of interest turns a constitutional post into a political stakeholder.
(iii) The Weapon of Delay: Speakers often stall petitions to let defectors vote, alter House majorities, and sustain governments.
(iv) Judicial Overreach - While Kihoto Hollohan (1992) enabled judicial review, courts usually intervene after political damage is done.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could reference Karnataka Speaker's delayed decisions (2019) where disqualification petitions were pending during confidence vote
- Could mention Manipur Assembly Speaker controversy (2017) where decisions favored ruling party MLAs
- Could discuss Supreme Court's directions in Keisham Meghachandra case emphasizing time-bound decisions by Speakers
What you wrote:
3. Way Forward
(i) Independent Tribunal - Shift adjudication to an independent body or the Election Commission, as recommended by Dinesh Goswami Committee.
(ii) Speaker Reform: Mandate the Speaker to resign from their political party upon election to ensure strict neutrality impartiality.
3. Way Forward
(i) Independent Tribunal - Shift adjudication to an independent body or the Election Commission, as recommended by Dinesh Goswami Committee.
(ii) Speaker Reform: Mandate the Speaker to resign from their political party upon election to ensure strict neutrality impartiality.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could include time-bound adjudication (3-6 months) as suggested by Supreme Court in various judgments
- Could mention Election Commission's role in pre-poll alliances to prevent post-election opportunistic mergers
What you wrote:
The Tenth Schedule has failed to curb political opportunism. It has transformed from a shield against defection into a weapon for majoritarian engineering, severely compromising legislative neutrality.
The Tenth Schedule has failed to curb political opportunism. It has transformed from a shield against defection into a weapon for majoritarian engineering, severely compromising legislative neutrality.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could conclude with constitutional morality perspective emphasizing need for reforms to preserve democratic integrity and voter mandate sanctity.
Strong structural organization and good grasp of constitutional amendments. However, the answer needs more specific examples to demonstrate how split-merger distinction practically determines political survival, which was a key demand of the question.
Demand of the Question
- Discussion of how split vs merger distinction determines political survival despite anti-defection intent
- Examination of Speaker's disqualification powers and neutrality concerns
- Analysis of law's effectiveness in preventing opportunistic defection
What you wrote:
The Tenth Schedule was created to combat "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" political defections. However, the distinction between a 'split' and a 'merger' and the Speaker's unmonitored power largely leads to compromising the law's neutrality.
The Tenth Schedule was created to combat "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" political defections. However, the distinction between a 'split' and a 'merger' and the Speaker's unmonitored power largely leads to compromising the law's neutrality.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could briefly mention Article 102/191 which provides constitutional basis for disqualification to establish legal foundation.
More Challenges
View All- View Challenge
GS2
Indian Polity
11 Jul, 2026
“Judicial independence cannot become a shield against judicial accountability.” Examine this statement in light of the constitutional process for removing judges and the accountability concerns raised by a judge resigning during pending removal proceedings.
- View Challenge
GS2
International Relations
Yesterday
"Critical minerals have emerged as the new strategic resources of the 21st century." Discuss their significance for India's economic and strategic security. Examine how international partnerships can strengthen India's critical mineral ecosystem.
- View Challenge
GS3
Economy
9 Jul, 2026
"The success of ethanol blending depends as much on fuel quality and vehicle compatibility as on blending targets." Examine this statement in the context of India's transition towards E20 fuel.
SuperKalam is your personal mentor for UPSC preparation, guiding you at every step of the exam journey.
Download the App
STUDY RESOURCES
CONTACT US
ⓒ Snapstack Technologies Private Limited