India Explained
ImplementedINCRajiv Gandhi

Anti-Defection Law (52nd Amendment, Tenth Schedule), 1985

Constitutional amendment adding the Tenth Schedule, which disqualifies legislators who voluntarily give up party membership or vote against party direction, with the presiding officer deciding.

Anti-defection law

Facts

  • The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 (Bill No. 22 of 1985) added the Tenth Schedule and amended Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191; it came into force on a date notified by the Central Government [1]. Secondary sources give 1 March 1985 as that date.
  • Under the original text, a member elected on a party ticket is disqualified if he voluntarily gives up party membership, or votes or abstains contrary to a party direction without prior permission; an independent who joins a party after election is also disqualified [1].
  • The original text exempted a group of at least one-third of a legislature party on a split (paragraph 3) and treated a merger as valid if two-thirds of the legislature party agreed (paragraph 4) [1]. A 2003 amendment later changed the merger/split provisions [2].
  • The presiding officer of the House decides disqualification questions [1].
  • In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Schedule, struck down paragraph 7 (which barred court jurisdiction), and held the presiding officer's decision open to limited judicial review [3][4].
  • In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court held that the Speaker, acting as a tribunal, must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, generally three months [3].
  • The phrase "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" refers to Haryana MLA Gaya Lal, who changed party three times in fifteen days in 1967 [5].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Statement of Objects and Reasons said the "evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern" and that, if not combated, it was "likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy" [1].
  • It recorded that the President's Address to Parliament had given an assurance that an anti-defection Bill would be introduced [1].
  • The Bill was described as "meant for outlawing defection" [1].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Petitioners in Kihoto Hollohan argued that the law curbed an elected member's right to dissent and freedom of conscience; the Court upheld the Schedule [4].
  • Observers note that Speakers, who usually belong to ruling parties, have at times delayed decisions on petitions until assemblies end [3].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Defines defection in law and applies one procedure to Parliament and every State legislature.Tenth Schedule text sets grounds for disqualification and assigns decisions to the presiding officer [1].
  • Courts have supplied review and time norms that sit alongside the Schedule.Kihoto Hollohan (1992) upheld the law and kept judicial review for limited grounds; Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020) set a generally three-month norm for decisions [3][4].

Concerns (2)

  • Delay in deciding petitions.Supreme Court Observer reports that, since 1985, there have been multiple instances of Speakers (mostly belonging to ruling parties) delaying decisions on such petitions until assembly terms end [3].
  • The Schedule links disqualification to votes against party direction, not only to leaving the party.Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the original text disqualifies a member who votes or abstains contrary to a party direction without prior permission [1]; petitioners argued this curbs dissent and freedom of conscience, and the Court upheld the provision [4].

Evidence points

+9.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+7 to +12
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +1.5A +1B +2
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +1.0A 0B +2Scorers differ
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +2.5A +2B +3
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +1.5A +1B +2

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Upheld by the Supreme Court with limited review, but reported delays by presiding officers and no outcome data on defection rates give mixed evidence.

Scorer B. Upheld by the Supreme Court with limited judicial review and still in force, though Speakers' delays in deciding petitions are reported.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Defections by legislators were a recognised problem from the late 1960s onward, with no anti-defection rule in the Constitution before 1985.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +7 and +12. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

Before 1985 the Constitution did not regulate legislators who changed parties. The Tenth Schedule introduced rules for disqualification, with the Speaker or Chairman deciding. The original text allowed a split by one-third of a legislature party and a merger by two-thirds; a 2003 amendment changed those provisions.

In 1992 the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan upheld the Schedule and held that presiding officers’ decisions can be reviewed in limited circumstances. In 2020 it set a general three-month norm for deciding petitions.

Supporters of the law argue that it provides stability for elected governments and curbs bargaining over legislators. Critics argue that it restricts dissent within parties, that decisions by presiding officers have sometimes been delayed, and that its operation depends on how presiding officers act. This entry does not attempt to measure change in the frequency of defections, as no consistent dataset was reviewed.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • StalledJDElections & Democracy

    Women's Reservation Bill, first introduction 1996 (81st Amendment Bill)

    The United Front government introduced the first Constitution amendment bill to reserve one-third of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats for women in September 1996; it was referred to a joint committee and lapsed.

    Evidence points −2.0 (range −3.0 to −1.0)

  • Struck downBJPElections & Democracy

    Candidate Disclosure Ordinance and RPA (Third Amendment) Act, 2002

    After the Supreme Court ordered candidate affidavits on cases, assets and education, an ordinance and Act narrowed disclosure to criminal cases; the Court struck down Section 33B in 2003.

    Evidence points −3.0 (range −5.0 to −1.0)

  • Struck downBJPElections & Democracy

    Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018

    Bearer-type bonds sold by SBI from 2018 let donors fund registered parties without public disclosure of donor names; the Supreme Court struck the scheme down on 15 February 2024.

    Evidence points −8.5 (range −10.0 to −7.0)

  • ImplementedBJPElections & DemocracyUnsettled

    Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023

    Parliament legislated appointments of election commissioners; the panel is the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister, replacing the Chief Justice named in the Court's 2023 interim panel.

    Evidence points +0.5 (range −1.0 to +2.0)