Recently, the Supreme Court refused to consider a petition questioning the anti-defection law outlined in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasised that the Tenth Schedule had previously been validated by a Constitution Bench in the landmark case of Kihoto Hollahan v. Zachillhu & Ors., and a three-judge bench could not revisit the matter.
The Tenth Schedule, introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, disqualified Members of Parliament or State Legislatures if they defected from the party under whose banner they were elected. One of the disqualification criteria states that a lawmaker can lose their seat if they vote or abstain from voting contrary to their party’s direction without prior permission, and such behaviour is not excused within fifteen days. In 1992, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, describing its provisions as essential for reinforcing the integrity of Indian parliamentary democracy by discouraging unethical political defections.
CJI Chandrachud highlighted that the anti-defection law was introduced to curb lawmakers from switching political allegiances after elections, addressing a significant issue in Indian democracy. “The law was challenged and upheld. Without this provision, members of Party A could easily defect to Party B without any consequences. While private citizens can switch parties, this constitutional amendment aims to prevent elected representatives from doing so, ensuring stability”, the court observed, dismissing the petition.