Anti-Defection Law in India

The "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" culture of the 1960s, where legislators frequently switched parties for personal gain, created massive political instability in India. To curb this, the Parliament enacted the Anti-Defection Law.

The Anti-Defection Law is a high-yield topic for UPSC Prelims (polity, Tenth Schedule, amendments) and GS Paper II of Mains (parliamentary democracy, party system, judicial review). Let’s study this topic in detail!

The Anti-Defection Law is a rule in the Constitution that prevents MPs and MLAs from changing their political party or disobeying their party’s official whip. The law punishes them with disqualification from the House if they do so.​

In simple words, if a legislator gets elected on Party A’s ticket, they cannot suddenly join Party B or vote against Party A’s stand on important issues without risking loss of their seat.

• The anti-defection law was introduced by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1985 and added to the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule.
• It applies to both MPs (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and members of State Legislatures (MLAs and MLCs).
• The power to decide cases of defection lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the State Assembly, and with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Legislative Council.
• The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act in 2003 strengthened the law by removing the earlier “split” option and introduced rules, such as limiting the size of the Council of Ministers.

Also read: Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Constitutional Remedies | UPSC Notes

The main aim was to stop corruption and leaders jumping from one party to another for personal gain.

• To prevent governments from falling due to sudden defections of legislators.​
• To stop the unethical practice of buying and selling legislators to form a government.​
• To ensure that candidates elected on a specific party ticket remain loyal to that party’s ideology and manifesto.
• Reduce unnecessary elections caused by the fall of governments due to defections.

Also read: Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) in the Indian Constitution | UPSC Polity Notes

The Tenth Schedule lays down specific rules regarding disqualification and decision-making powers.

1. Disqualification on grounds of defection:

A member is disqualified if

• They voluntarily give up membership in their political party.
• They vote or abstain from voting in the House against the party whip, without prior permission, and the party does not condone it within 15 days.
• Elected on a party ticket, and they join another party after the election.
• Independent member if he/she join any political party after the election.
• Nominated member if they join a political party after six months from the date of nomination.​

2. Merger Exception

If at least two-thirds of the members of a legislative party agree to merge with another political party:

• They are not disqualified.
• This is meant to protect genuine party mergers, not individual deals.

3. Split Provision 

• Earlier, if one-third of the members split, they were protected.
• This led to mass defections being labelled as “splits”.
• Removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, because it was widely misused.​

4. Decision-making Authority

• The Speaker/Chairman of the House decides on disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.​
• Their decisions are subject to judicial review by the High Courts/Supreme Court (after the decision is made).​

5. Bar on Court Jurisdiction

• Originally tried to exclude courts from interfering in these matters.
• But in Kihoto Hollohan (1992), the Supreme Court held that judicial review is allowed on limited grounds.

Also read: DPSP UPSC Complete Notes: Articles, Classification, Features & Criticism

The Anti-Defection Law has evolved through key constitutional amendments. Understanding these amendments is important as they directly impact parliamentary democracy and party politics.

1. 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1985):

• Introduced the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, making the Anti-Defection law a constitutional provision​.
• Added paragraphs 1-8 laying down defection rules, disqualification grounds, and exceptions​.
• Protected by the Constitution, not just an ordinary law, making it difficult to amend or repeal​.
• Decision-making authority is given to the Speaker/Chairman of the respective legislative houses​.
• Original split exception, allowed defection without disqualification if one-third of the legislature party members split.

2. 91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003)

The 91st Amendment, which came into force on 7 July 2004, made the anti-defection law more stringent by removing the split loophole and punishing defectors.

• The earlier rule that allowed a one-third split in a party has been removed. Only mergers supported by at least two-thirds of members are now protected from disqualification.
• A party merger is valid only when two-thirds of its legislators agree to it; anything less attracts anti-defection action.
• Members disqualified under the anti-defection law cannot become ministers until they are re-elected, as per Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B).
• Under Article 361B, anyone disqualified for defection cannot hold any paid political position, such as a party office-bearer or committee chair.
• The size of the Council of Ministers is capped: it cannot exceed 15% of the total strength of the House, with a minimum of 12 ministers in each state.

Also read: Preamble of India UPSC Notes: Meaning, Objectives, Resolution & Landmark Cases Explained

The Supreme Court has not only upheld the law but also tried to plug its gaps through key judgments.

1. Kihoto Hollohan Case(1992):

• Upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule.​
• Held that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review on grounds such as:

(i) Mala fides (bad faith),
(ii) Violation of constitutional provisions
(ii) Violation of natural justice. 

2. Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994)

• Clarified that “voluntarily giving up membership” is wider than formal resignation.
• Conduct indicating support to another party or open rebellion can be treated as giving up party membership.

3. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020)

• The Court said Speakers should normally decide disqualification petitions within 3 months, except in exceptional circumstances.​
• Expressed concern that long delays defeat the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law.

4. Recent Supreme Court remarks – BRS MLAs case (Telangana, 2025)

• About 10 BRS MLAs defected to the Congress after the 2023 Telangana elections; disqualification petitions remained pending for a long time.
• The Supreme Court strongly criticised the delay by the Speaker and said such inaction makes the law meaningless.​
• Famously remarked that the situation was like “Operation successful, patient dead”–meaning the law works only on paper if decisions come after the term is over.​
• Directed the Speaker to decide the cases within 3 months.

Despite its good intentions, the law has faced significant criticism for stifling democracy within parties.

• Loss of Individual Voice: It forces MPs/MLAs to blindly follow the party line, even if they disagree with a policy or if it hurts their constituency’s interests.​
• Speaker’s Bias: The Speaker is usually a member of the ruling party, leading to allegations of partiality. They may delay decisions for years to help their own party.​
• No Accountability to Voters: By making legislators accountable primarily to the party High Command, it reduces their accountability to the actual voters.​
• Differentiation between Individual and Group: It punishes individual defection but validates "mass defection" (mergers), which some critics call "legalised defection".

Also read: Article 21 UPSC Notes: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty | UPSC Polity Fundamental Rights

Experts and committees like the Dinesh Goswami Committee and the Law Commission have suggested reforms.

• Independent Authority: The power to disqualify should be transferred from the Speaker to an independent body like the Election Commission or a specialised tribunal.​
• Limit the Whip: The whip should arguably apply only to critical votes (like No-Confidence Motions or Budgets) to allow freedom of speech on other bills.​
• Intra-Party Democracy: Political parties should be legally required to function democratically so that dissent is resolved internally rather than through defection.

The Anti-Defection Law reduced the "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" culture, but it still hasn’t fully stopped governments from being toppled. Going ahead, we need a balance; the law should stop unfair defections but should not silence genuine disagreement. The Speaker should act fairly, and decisions on defection cases should be made within a fixed time so the law remains effective.

Start Your UPSC Journey Smarter with SuperKalam

Crack UPSC with AI-powered guidance, personalised feedback, PYQs and expert-curated notes, all in one platform.

Join SuperKalam now and take your preparation to the next level!