Score:
6/10
Analyze what earned this score 🔥
Topper’s Copy
GS2
Indian Polity
10 marks
Mass political shifts are often justified as ‘mergers’ rather than ‘defections’. Critically examine this distinction under the Tenth Schedule.
Student’s Answer
Evaluation by SuperKalam
Demand of the Question
- Understanding the legal distinction between mergers and defections under Tenth Schedule
- Critical examination of how mass political shifts are justified as mergers
- Assessment of whether this distinction serves its intended purpose or enables circumvention
What you wrote:
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1985 introduced the Tenth schedule to curb defections. However, the distinction between defection (Para 2) and merger (Para 4) has blurred in Practice.
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1985 introduced the Tenth schedule to curb defections. However, the distinction between defection (Para 2) and merger (Para 4) has blurred in Practice.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could enhance with the constitutional objective (e.g., "introduced to ensure political stability and maintain electoral mandate integrity")
What you wrote:
Legal distinction
1. Para 2 (defection): Individual or small group switching parties → disqualification
2. Para 4 (merger): ≥2/3 members agree to merge → exemption from disqualification.
Legal distinction
1. Para 2 (defection): Individual or small group switching parties → disqualification
2. Para 4 (merger): ≥2/3 members agree to merge → exemption from disqualification.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could add critical perspective on the 2/3 threshold (e.g., "the arbitrary 2/3 threshold creates perverse incentives for orchestrated mass defections rather than preventing individual opportunism")
- Could mention Article 191 which empowers Speaker's role in disqualification proceedings
What you wrote:
Critical Examination
3. Circumvention of law: The 2/3 threshold legitimizes what is essentially collective defection.
4. Mandate distortion: Voters elect party representative, not shifting coalitions → violate representative democracy.
5. Legislative Vs Organisational split: Law recognizes only legislative party, enabling takeover without party consent.
6. Speaker's discretion: As seen in Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillhu (1992), delays enable engineered mergers.
7. Rise of political opportunities: Encourages "bulk defections" instead of curbing them.
Critical Examination
3. Circumvention of law: The 2/3 threshold legitimizes what is essentially collective defection.
4. Mandate distortion: Voters elect party representative, not shifting coalitions → violate representative democracy.
5. Legislative Vs Organisational split: Law recognizes only legislative party, enabling takeover without party consent.
6. Speaker's discretion: As seen in Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillhu (1992), delays enable engineered mergers.
7. Rise of political opportunities: Encourages "bulk defections" instead of curbing them.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could strengthen with recent examples (e.g., "Goa Assembly defections in 2022 where 8 Congress MLAs joined BJP, citing merger provisions")
- Could add constitutional morality aspect (e.g., "violates the spirit of Article 102/191 which aims to maintain legislative integrity")
What you wrote:
Way forward
8. Remove merger exception as per Law Commission 170th report.
9. Shift decision making to Election Commission of India as per Dinesh Goswami committee recommendation.
10. Time bound adjudication.
Way forward
8. Remove merger exception as per Law Commission 170th report.
9. Shift decision making to Election Commission of India as per Dinesh Goswami committee recommendation.
10. Time bound adjudication.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could discuss Election Commission's quasi-judicial role in symbol disputes as precedent for decision-making transfer
- Could mention fixed time limits (e.g., "decisions within 90 days as recommended by various parliamentary committees")
What you wrote:
Thus, as noted by Law Commission 170th report, the merger provision has effectively legitimized defections, undermining the Tenth scheme core objective.
Thus, as noted by Law Commission 170th report, the merger provision has effectively legitimized defections, undermining the Tenth scheme core objective.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could conclude with broader democratic implications (e.g., "ensuring that electoral mandates reflect genuine political will rather than post-election opportunism, thereby strengthening India's parliamentary democracy")
Strong constitutional knowledge with relevant case law and committee references. The answer effectively demonstrates the gap between legal provisions and practical outcomes. However, could benefit from more contemporary examples and clearer structural organization of critical points.
Demand of the Question
- Understanding the legal distinction between mergers and defections under Tenth Schedule
- Critical examination of how mass political shifts are justified as mergers
- Assessment of whether this distinction serves its intended purpose or enables circumvention
What you wrote:
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1985 introduced the Tenth schedule to curb defections. However, the distinction between defection (Para 2) and merger (Para 4) has blurred in Practice.
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1985 introduced the Tenth schedule to curb defections. However, the distinction between defection (Para 2) and merger (Para 4) has blurred in Practice.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could enhance with the constitutional objective (e.g., "introduced to ensure political stability and maintain electoral mandate integrity")
More Challenges
View All- View Challenge
GS2
Indian Polity
13 Aug, 2026
The FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to strengthen state oversight over foreign-funded organisations while raising concerns about civil society autonomy. Critically examine.
- View Challenge
GS3
Economy
Yesterday
The next phase of India's MSME growth lies not merely in creating more enterprises, but in clustering them. Examine how a cluster-based approach can enhance the productivity and global competitiveness of Indian MSMEs.
- View Challenge
GS2
Social Justice
11 Aug, 2026
The demand for Scheduled Caste status for Dalit Christians raises complex questions of caste discrimination, religious freedom and affirmative action. Critically examine the constitutional and socio-legal dimensions of this debate.
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