Question

Choose the correct statement(s) regarding the Anti-Defection Law under the 52nd and 91st Constitutional Amendments:

1. The 52nd Amendment introduced the Tenth Schedule, which disqualifies a member of a House who voluntarily gives up their party membership.

2. The 91st Amendment removed the exemption from disqualification in case of a split in a political party involving one-third of its members.

3. The decision of the presiding officer on disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law is final and cannot be questioned in any court.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• A. Only one
• B. Only two
• C. All three
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

Answer:

B. Only two

Anti-Defection Law in India

• The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 is popularly known as the Anti-Defection Law. It added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
• The Tenth Schedule outlines the provisions for the disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) on grounds of defection.
• Grounds for Disqualification: A member can be disqualified if they:
  • Voluntarily give up their membership of a political party.
  • Vote or abstain from voting in such a manner contrary to any direction issued by their political party without its prior permission or condonation.
• Exceptions to Defection: The original Tenth Schedule provided for an exception in case of a 'split' where at least one-third of the members of the legislative party decided to separate from the original party.
• The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 significantly amended the Anti-Defection Law.
• Key Change by 91st Amendment: This amendment abolished the exception related to splits. Now, a defection by one-third of the members of a legislative party does not grant immunity from disqualification.
• 91st Amendment and Council of Ministers: The 91st Amendment also limited the size of the Council of Ministers to 15% of the total membership of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) or the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be.
• Role of Presiding Officer: The presiding officer of the House (Speaker/Chairman) is the authority to decide on disqualification petitions.
• Judicial Review: While the decision of the presiding officer was initially considered final, the Supreme Court, in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), ruled that the decisions of the Presiding Officer are subject to judicial review. This means their decisions can be challenged in courts, although the scope of review is limited.