The 10th Schedule, commonly referred to as the “Anti-Defection Law,” was introduced in the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985. It was designed to curb political defections by disqualifying elected members of the House of People (Lok Sabha) or Legislative Assemblies who switch political parties. This provision aimed to prevent instability and ensure political accountability in parliamentary democracy.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed a plea filed by a private individual challenging the constitutional validity of the 10th Schedule.
CJI Chandrachud emphasized that the anti-defection law was implemented to address the issue of lawmakers switching political parties after elections.
He noted, “This was also challenged and upheld. How could one address defection issues without this law? While private citizens can change parties without consequences, the constitutional amendment aims to prevent members of the House of People from doing so. Dismissed,”
the Court concluded.
The petitioner argued that the insertion of the 10th Schedule, which addresses anti-defection laws, was unconstitutional and infringed upon the rights of elected representatives. However, the court reaffirmed that this provision had already been upheld in a landmark judgment.
The 10th Schedule, commonly referred to as the “Anti-Defection Law,” was introduced in the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985. It was designed to curb political defections by disqualifying elected members of the House of People (Lok Sabha) or Legislative Assemblies who switch political parties. This provision aimed to prevent instability and ensure political accountability in parliamentary democracy.
In the 1992 case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 10th Schedule, ruling that it did not violate any fundamental rights of individuals. The court also held that the Speaker of the House would act as a quasi-judicial authority to decide defection cases.
The Supreme Court consolidated various challenges to the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule, which had been raised in multiple High Courts. The challenges were based on claims that the Schedule violated the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. Petitioners argued that it restricted elected representatives’ freedom of speech and right to dissent, while also granting the Speaker the authority to make final decisions on disqualification.
In a 3:2 split decision, a 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Schedule, affirming the Speaker’s power to determine issues of disqualification. The Court stated that these powers were intended to enhance parliamentary democracy by addressing “unprincipled and unethical political defections.” It recognized defections as a political and social issue, often motivated by personal gain. Additionally, the Court noted that the Speaker’s decisions could be subject to review by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The petitioner in the current case contested the insertion of the 10th Schedule, arguing that it infringed on the freedom of elected members to change political allegiances without facing disqualification. They contended that the Schedule limited the democratic rights of individuals, undermining the representation of the people.
CJI Chandrachud emphasized that the 10th Schedule was necessary to maintain the integrity of parliamentary democracy.
“While private citizens are free to change parties, the constitutional amendment was intended to address the problem of members from the House of People engaging in defection,”
the Chief Justice added.
Citing the precedent set by the Kihoto Hollohan case, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, reaffirming the constitutional validity of the 10th Schedule. The three-judge bench ruled that it was beyond their jurisdiction to reconsider the matter, as the earlier ruling had already upheld the amendment.
The bench stated that challenging the 10th Schedule again would destabilize the foundational principles of parliamentary democracy and compromise the effectiveness of anti-defection laws.
