Anti Defection Law

The anti-defection law — political facts, legal fiction


From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Anti-defection law

Mains level : Paper 2- Paragraph 4 of Tenth Schedule


The ongoing political crisis in Maharashtra, and many others before it, are grim reminders of what the Tenth Schedule can and cannot do.

About 10th Schedule

  • In 1985 the Tenth Schedule, popularly known as the anti-defection law, was added to the Constitution.
  • But its enactment was catalyzed by the political instability after the general elections of 1967.
  • This was the time when multiple state governments were toppled after MLAs changed their political loyalties.
  • The purpose of the 1985 Constitution Amendment was to bring stability to governments by deterring MPs and MLAs from changing their political parties on whose ticket they were elected.
  • The penalty for shifting political loyalties is the loss of parliamentary membership and a bar on becoming a minister.

Provisions of the 10th Schedule

  • Instances of floor crossing have long gone unchecked and unpunished.
  • In part, this can be attributed to the exemption given to mergers between political parties which facilitate bulk defections.
  • Disqualification provision: The second paragraph of the Tenth Schedule allows for disqualification of an elected member of a House if such member belonging to any political party has voluntarily given up membership of their party, or if they vote in the House against such party’s whip.
  • Exceptions: Paragraph 4 creates an exception for mergers between political parties by introducing three crucial concepts — that of the “original political party”, the “legislature party”, and “deemed merger”.
  • What is the legislature party?  It means the group consisting of all elected members of a House for the time being belonging to one political party.
  • Original political party: An “original political party” means the political party to which a member belongs (this can refer to the party generally, outside of the House).
  • Paragraph 4 does not clarify whether the original political party refers to the party at the national level or the regional level.

How Paragraph 4 of the 10th Schedule deals with mergers?

  • Paragraph 4 is spread across two sub-paragraphs, a conjoint reading of which suggests that a merger can take place only when an original party merges with another political party, and at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party have agreed to this merger.
  • It is only when these two conditions are satisfied that a group of elected members can claim exemption from disqualification on grounds of merger.
  • The second sub-paragraph (of Paragraph 4) says that a party shall be “deemed” to have merged with another party if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.
  • However, in most cases there is no factual merger of original political parties at the national (or even regional) level.
  • Creation of legal fiction: Paragraph 4 seems to be creating a “legal fiction” so as to indicate that a merger of two-third members of a legislature party can be deemed to be a merger of political parties, even if there is no actual merger of the original political party with another party.
  • In statutory interpretation, “deemed” has an established understanding.
  • The word “deemed” may be used in a law to create a legal fiction, and give an artificial construction to a word or a phrase used in a statute.
  • In other cases, it may be used to include what is obvious or what is uncertain.
  • In either of these cases, the intention of the legislature in creating a deeming provision is paramount.

Merger exception and issues with it

  • The merger exception was created to save instances of the principled coming together of political groups from disqualification under the anti-defection law, and to strike a compromise between the right of dissent and party discipline. 
  • In the absence of mergers of original political parties, the deeming fiction could, presumably, be used as a means to allow mergers of legislature parties.
  • Encouraging defection: Reading Paragraph 4 in this manner would empower legislature parties to solely merge with another party, and thus, practically ease defection.

What if sub-paragraphs are read conjunctively?

  • For a valid merger then, an original political party has to first merge with another political party, and then two-thirds of the legislature party must support that merger.
  • Given the politics of current times, stark differences in parties’ respective ideologies, and deep-seated historical rivalries, it is unimaginable how a merger between major national or regional parties would materialise.

Way forward

  • Remove Paragraph 4: In a situation where either reading of Paragraph 4 in its current form yields undesirable results, its deletion from the Tenth Schedule is a possible way forward.
  • The Law Commission in 1999 and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in 2002 made similar recommendations.
  • Revisiting by Supreme Court: Till that happens, an academic revisiting of the Tenth Schedule by the Supreme Court, so as to guide future use of the anti-defection law, is timely and should happen soon.


Neither of these two interpretations of Paragraph 4complements the ‘mischief’ that the Tenth Schedule was expected to remedy — that of curbing unprincipled defections. Amending it is the need of the hour.

UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments