UPSC Current Affairs for 21ˢᵗ July 2026

Syllabus Mapping: GS-2: Parliament, State Legislatures, Constitutional Bodies, Representation of People.

Recent constitutional disputes over defections in Maharashtra and Telangana, coupled with repeated Supreme Court scrutiny of the Speaker’s role, have reignited the debate on the effectiveness of India’s Anti-Defection Law. While the Tenth Schedule, introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, succeeded in promoting political stability, its operation has increasingly raised concerns over legislative autonomy, institutional neutrality and democratic accountability.

How has the Anti-Defection Law strengthened India’s parliamentary democracy?

1. Ensures Stability of Elected Governments: The Anti-Defection Law prevents opportunistic floor-crossing, reducing the risk of abrupt government collapse and ensuring continuity in governance and policy implementation.
2. Protects the Electoral Mandate: By discouraging post-election shifts in political allegiance, the law preserves the mandate entrusted by voters and prevents its distortion through legislative defections.
3. Reinforces the Principle of Responsible Government: Stable legislative support enables the Council of Ministers to function effectively under the doctrine of Collective Responsibility, ensuring executive accountability to the legislature.
4. Deters Horse-Trading and Political Corruption: The law discourages legislators from changing party allegiance for ministerial office, financial inducements or political patronage, thereby promoting ethical governance. Eg: Recent Example: Political developments in Karnataka (2019) and Madhya Pradesh (2020) highlighted concerns over inducement-based defections.
5. Institutional Legitimacy: By discouraging unprincipled defections, the law seeks to reinforce citizens’ confidence in the integrity and credibility of elected representatives and democratic institutions.
6. Upholds Constitutional Morality: The law seeks to ensure that political power is exercised through constitutional processes rather than opportunistic political bargaining.

Why Has the Existing Anti-Defection Framework Come Under Constitutional Scrutiny?

1. Institutional Bias in the Adjudicatory Process: The Speaker, despite performing a quasi-judicial function under the Tenth Schedule, has allegedly remained a political actor, raising concerns over impartiality and institutional credibility. Eg: In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court suggested that Parliament reconsider entrusting the Speaker with adjudicatory powers.
2. Procedural Accountability: The absence of a constitutional or statutory timeline allows prolonged delays in deciding disqualification petitions, often altering political outcomes before legal scrutiny is completed. Eg: In the Telangana MLA defection case (2025), the Supreme Court directed the Speaker to decide pending petitions within a stipulated timeframe after prolonged inaction.
3. Collective Defection: The exception permitting mergers by two-thirds of a legislature party has often legitimised collective defections, undermining the objective of curbing political opportunism. Eg: The Maharashtra political crisis (2022–23) highlighted controversies surrounding legislative mergers, party identity and the operation of the Tenth Schedule.
4. Weakening Deliberative Parliamentary Democracy: The fear of disqualification discourages legislators from expressing dissent or voting according to conscience, thereby weakening Parliament’s deliberative role and executive oversight.
5. Circumvention Through Engineered Resignations: Political actors increasingly resort to mass resignations instead of formal defections, achieving the same political outcome while escaping the operation of the Tenth Schedule. Eg: Madhya Pradesh (2020) demonstrated how governments can be reshaped through coordinated resignations rather than direct defections.
6. Judicialisation of Legislative Processes: Frequent intervention by constitutional courts in defection disputes indicates institutional failure within the legislative framework and raises concerns regarding the separation of powers.

Towards a More Accountable and Deliberative Anti-Defection Framework

1. Ensure Independent and Impartial Adjudication: as recommended by the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), transfer the power to decide defection petitions from the Speaker to an independent constitutional authority or tribunal to eliminate perceptions of political bias and strengthen institutional credibility.
2. Procedural Certainty: During the Telangana defection case (2025), the Supreme Court stressed the need for expeditious disposal of pending petitions.
3. Legislative Independence: Limit binding whips to votes affecting the survival of the government—such as Confidence Motions, No-Confidence Motions and Money Bills—while permitting legislators to vote freely on ordinary legislation.
4. Institutionalise Inner-Party Democracy: The 255th Law Commission Report (2015) advocated strengthening internal democracy as a prerequisite for meaningful legislative accountability.
5. Anti-Circumvention Framework: Review the merger provision under the Tenth Schedule to prevent its misuse for legitimising organised defections that undermine the spirit of the law.
6. Reinforce Electoral Accountability: Require legislators who voluntarily change party affiliation to resign and seek a fresh electoral mandate, thereby restoring the primacy of voter consent.
7. Codify Clear Standards under the Tenth Schedule: Define objective criteria for terms such as ‘voluntarily giving up membership’, mergers and whip violations to minimise ambiguity and reduce avoidable litigation.
8. Ethical Constitutionalism: Legal reforms should be complemented by stronger political ethics, respect for constitutional conventions and a parliamentary culture that values informed debate over partisan conformity.

The Anti-Defection Law must evolve from merely protecting governments to strengthening parliamentary democracy. A constitutional framework that balances political stability with legislative independence can preserve the true spirit of the Tenth Schedule.