Question

Consider the following statements regarding the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act:

i. It introduced the Tenth Schedule to address the issue of defection in Parliament and State Legislatures.

ii. The first Lok Sabha member disqualified under this amendment was Lalduhoma.

iii. The decision of the presiding officer on disqualification is not subject to judicial review.

iv. The 91st Amendment removed the provision for exemption from disqualification in case of a party merger.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• A. i and ii only
• B. i, ii, and iii only
• C. i and iii only
• D. i and ii only

Answer 1

Answer:

A. i and ii only

52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985

• Introduction of the Tenth Schedule: This amendment is primarily known for adding the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. This schedule deals with the disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures on the ground of defection. It aims to curb political instability caused by elected representatives switching parties.
• Objective of the Act: The main objective was to prevent politicians from changing their party affiliations after being elected, thereby ensuring party loyalty and stability in governance.
• First Disqualification: Lalduhoma, a Member of Parliament from Mizoram, was the first Lok Sabha member to be disqualified under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. This event highlighted the practical application and implications of the anti-defection law.
• Role of the Presiding Officer: The Tenth Schedule initially vested the power to decide on disqualification cases with the Speaker or the Chairman of the House.
• Judicial Review: Initially, the decision of the presiding officer was considered final and not subject to judicial review. However, this position was later modified by the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), which held that the decisions of the presiding officer are subject to judicial review to a limited extent. Therefore, statement (iii) is incorrect in its absolute form.
• Amendments related to Party Mergers: While the 52nd Amendment introduced provisions regarding defection and party mergers, the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, significantly altered the provisions related to mergers. The 91st Amendment removed the exemption from disqualification on grounds of defection in case of a split or merger if at least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party concerned have merged with another political party. This means that if a merger does not involve at least two-thirds of the members, the defecting members can still be disqualified. Statement (iv) is incorrect as it refers to the 91st Amendment removing the provision, but the 52nd Amendment itself had provisions for merger exemptions, which were later modified by the 91st.