What the anti‑defection law seeks to curb

Supreme Court Notice on Tenth Schedule Interpretation: What It Means for Indian Parliament

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s petition has prompted the Supreme Court to seek the Centre’s response on the scope of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs the anti‑defection law. The bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe questioned whether the “merger” provision that lets legislators avoid disqualification is being misused to overturn electoral verdicts, citing the pending Goa defection case and a challenge by the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction.

The anti‑defection law, enacted through the 52nd Amendment in 1985, inserts a “floor‑crossing” bar in Article 84 and empowers the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to decide on disqualifications. Its primary aim is to preserve the stability of elected governments by preventing opportunistic party switching.

• ▸The law applies to members of both houses of Parliament and to state legislatures.
• ▸Disqualification occurs when a member voluntarily relinquishes party membership or votes against the party line.
• ▸The “merger” exception allows a split if at least two‑thirds of a party’s legislators agree to join another party.

How the merger clause operates

Under the merger clause, a group constituting two‑thirds of a legislative party may “merge” with another party without attracting penalty. Critics argue that this threshold is low enough for splinter groups to engineer defections while cloaking them as legitimate mergers.

• ▸In 2022, eight of ten Congress MLAs in Goa claimed to form the required two‑thirds and announced a merger with the BJP.
• ▸The Supreme Court observed that such matters are “typically to be raised before the floor of the House,” underscoring parliamentary primacy.
• ▸The clause is anchored in Article 81, which prescribes the composition of the Lok Sabha and indirectly shapes party dynamics.

Recent judicial interventions

The current petition highlights two high‑profile challenges: the Goa defection controversy and the dispute involving the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction, which contests Speaker Om Birla’s approval of a merger of six of its MPs with the Shinde‑led faction. The Court’s decision to issue a notice, rather than an interim stay, signals a willingness to let parliamentary mechanisms address the issue while keeping judicial oversight.

• ▸The petition was filed by Kapil Sibal, an independent Rajya Sabha member, on July 22, 2026.
• ▸Justice Narasimha warned that “the Tenth Schedule is intended to regulate the mechanism between the legislators.”
• ▸The Court’s notice to the Centre requests a detailed response on the constitutional validity of the merger provision.

Implications for parliamentary democracy

If the merger clause is interpreted loosely, a ruling party could engineer defections to alter the balance of power without triggering disqualification, effectively subverting the electorate’s mandate. Conversely, a stricter reading would reinforce the principle that only the legislature itself can decide on matters of party affiliation, preserving the sanctity of the electoral verdict.

• ▸A lax interpretation could enable a majority to become a minority, reshaping coalition dynamics.
• ▸A stringent approach would compel parties to resolve internal dissent through internal mechanisms rather than legislative loopholes.
• ▸The outcome may influence future reforms, such as proposals to raise the two‑thirds threshold or to vest the decision‑making authority in an independent tribunal.

Way forward

Legislators, the Election Commission, and constitutional scholars are now tasked with reconciling the anti‑defection framework with evolving political realities. Any amendment to the merger clause must balance the need for party discipline with the protection of legitimate dissent, ensuring that the spirit of the Constitution—stability, accountability, and democratic representation—is upheld.