ANALYSIS OF ANTI-DEFECTION LAWS IN INDIA

By:-

YASH PATIL

2nd Yr., LLB.

BHARATI VIDYAPEETH NEW LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

Mob.: -xyz

www.probono-india.in

Page 1 of 16
ABSTRACT:

The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1985 added the Tenth Schedule to the
Indian Constitution, popularly known as the “Anti-Defection law”. The Law has
succeeded in some ways in fulfilling its aim to bring party stability and curb
defections but due to some of its erroneous provisions, it is unable to achieve the best
it can. Many scholars may be surprised to learn that parliamentary members who switch
parties during the session may be expelled from parliament because they violate the law in
the country. This article studies such “anti-defection” Law in India. The law has
succeeded in a reasonable manner and has been able to secure party stability to some
extent. In order to combat political defections, the Tenth Schedule was inserted into
the Constitution of India in 1985. The Tenth Schedule introduced the anti-defection
law in India by laying down that legislators who voluntarily give up membership of
the party they belong to and legislators who disobey the whip issued by the party with
regard to voting, shall incur disqualification.The schedule mentions the grounds on
which a defecting member stands disqualified from his original political party. The
intention of this law is to ensure political stability and prevent legislators from being
bribed to defect and indulge in floor crossing. The individual identify of legislators
has diminished and has led to the rise of political parties as extra constitutional
authorities. The present article seeks to provide a brief analysis of the grounds
mentioned in the Tenth Schedule. It also highlights some of the merits and demerits of
the law. As the law gets older and older, we find that with the corruption prevalent
amongst politicians and given their dishonest tactics, they have been able to take
advantage of loopholes in the law to suit their personal needs. This is the reason why
the law has not been able to achieve the best it can. The present article tries to delve
into the loopholes, which render the 52nd Amendment Act somewhat unsuitable and
unsuccessful.

Page 2 of 16
 INTRODUCTION:

India is closing in on nearly three decades of having an anti-defection law in force.

Inserted in the Constitution of India by way of the 52nd Amendment in 1985, 1 the
concerned law is enshrined in the Tenth Schedule (‘Schedule X’). India was spurred to
introduce this law after witnessing as many defections in one year as it had in the four
Lok Sabhas preceding it. The amendment was intended to bring stability to the
structure of political parties and strengthen parliamentary practice by banning floor-
crossing. Schedule X was thus seen as a tool to cure this malaise. 2 The import of this
constitutional measure meant that once a member was elected under the symbol of a
political party to Parliament, the member could not later opt to leave that party or
switch to another party. Independent members of Parliament on the other hand would
be liable upon moving to the folds of a political party subsequent to the election. The
enacted Constitution of India had not mention of political parties. In any case, as far
back as the multiparty framework advanced, the Indian parliamentary framework has
seen rebellions in huge numbers starting with one political party then onto the next,
coming about nearly in the breakdown of open trust in a just type of government.
Defection is characterized as defection by one individual from the party of his
reliability towards his political party, his obligation towards his party or to his pioneer.
The act of changing political sides to get office was prominently known as Horse-
trading. There was widespread steed exchanging and debasement pervasive among the
political pioneers and political parties. MLAs exchanged their political parties. With a
specific end goal to check such a training and the subsequent results, the Rajiv Gandhi
Government in 1985 presented Anti-Defection law in the Indian Constitution. These
were presented by method for the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, which embedded
Tenth Schedule in the Constitution, prevalently known as Anti-Defection law. 3 The
correction put a bar on the elected members from apolitical part to leave that party or
to change to another party in the Parliament. The thought process behind the usage of

1
The Constitution (Fifty Second-Amendment) Act, 1985, available at
http://india.gov.in/govt/documents/amendment/amend52.htm (Last visited on September 17, 2011).
2
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 62 (2010).
3
J. K. Mittal, Parlimentary Dissent, Defection and Democracy, 35 j. Indian L. Insti. Vii (1991)

Page 3 of 16
 this Anti-Defection Law was to shorten the nonstop battle with this Political
disquietude.

In the Indian Constitution various grounds have been provided on the basis of which
both Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs)
may be disqualified from the Legislature and one such ground is ‘defection’. The term
defection signifies an act of a legislator wherein he transfers from the party on whose
platform he was elected to that of another political party. 4In India, the issue of
defection and the immense need to take a step to eradicate this problem was addressed
in 1967 elections which truly was a seminal moment in India’s electoral history. It was
in 1962 when a large number of defections was witnessed where approximately 142
MPs and 1900 MLAs committed defection and this was the event which also lead to
the formation of the very popular phrase ‘Aaya Ram Gaya Ram’ in reference to a
Haryana MLA Gaya Lal who changed his party thrice within the same day in
1967.5Therefore it was in 1967 when the Government took the decision to take a step
towards this menace and went on to pass a resolution. A committee was formed by the
Union Government under the chairmanship of the then Union Home Minister Shri
Y.B. Chavan and consisted of eminent people such as M.C. Setalvad, Jayaprakash
Narayan, H.N. Kunzru, M. Kumaramangalam and MadhuLimaye among others. 6
Their suggestions was inclusive of ones like political parties must have a code of
conduct among themselves, if the defection was for ideological reasons then the
defector shall be disqualified to continue as a legislator but could stand again and in
cases where the defection took place for pecuniary reasons then the defector shall not
only be disqualified from office but also be prevented from standing for a specified
period.7 These recommendations by the Chavan Committee was sought to be
implemented by means of The Constitution (Thirty Second Amendment) Bill but due
to the dissolution of the House before the bill could be passed, it remained an
unsuccessful attempt. Further, after another failed attempt to check defection by way
of the Constitution (Forty Eighth Amendment) Bill, it was finally in1985 that the
4
Anti-Defection Law, Common Cause, (July 2016), debated by Anviti Chaturvedi
5
The Anti-Defection Law explained by VibhorRelhan. (THE PRS BLOG dt. 06.12.2017)
6
K.N. Singh, Anti-Defection Law and Judicial Review,38 JPI 31 (1992) 32.
7
Gulab Gupta, Anti-Defection Law – An Introspection,1966 (IX) CILQ 127 at 130.

Page 4 of 16
 eradication of this travesty of the democratic process was put to action. The much
awaited anti-defection laws was passed by the parliament in 1985. The 52nd
amendment to the Constitution added the Tenth Schedule and amended various
Articles like 101, 102, 190 and 191 and its purpose was the incorporation of the
process by which legislators could be disqualified in case of defection committed by
them.8Prevention of the frequent change of parties by members was essential since it
was hampering the stability of the political system. This was a very important step
taken by the Rajiv Gandhi Government and as stated in the reasons for the amendment
“The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not
combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundation of our democracy and the
principles which sustain it.”9

The lure of office played a dominant part in this “Political Horse-Trading” was
obvious from the fact that out of 210 defecting legislators of various states during the
first year of “defection politics”, 116 were incorporated in the list of council of
ministers in the government which they helped to form 10. Inserted in the constitution
of India by way of the 52 nd Amendment in 198511. The Law is cherished in the Tenth
Schedule of the Constitution. Defection may be defined as desertion of loyalty,
Principle or duty, or of his leader or clause 12. The traditional term that has been used
for it is floor crossing when he crosses the floor and shifts from government to
opposition or the other way around. The falling to deal with this situation had led to
horse trading and corruption in day to-day functioning of the parliament. Thus
schedule X was seen as a device to cure this malaise 13. Chavan Committee on
Defection defines as an elected member of a legislature said to have defected, if after
being elected as a member of either house of parliament or legislative council or the
legislative assembly has voluntarily renounces allegiance to or Association with such

8
M R Madhavan, In Parliament, PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH, (Dec., 2009),
9
Jenna Narayan, Defect-Shun, Understanding Schedule X to the Constitution of India, INDIA LAW JOURNAL,
(2007),
10
Agarwal S, Anti-Defections Law inIndia, The Parliamentarian, 1986.
11
The Constitution (Fifty Second-Amendment) Act,1985.
12
Subhash, Kashyap C. Anti-Defection Law and Parliamentary Privileges, 3rdEdition.
13
Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law, 62, 2010.

Page 5 of 16
a political party provided that his action is not in consequence of a decision of the
party concerned. Therefore this Article aims to analyze the intent and impact of the
anti-defection law which was introduced to discontinue undemocratic political
defection by members of the legislature and lastly what are its features and its effect
on Effect of Anti-Defection Law on the role of a legislator.

REASONS FOR THE DEFECTION:

There are number of causes for defection, they are:

1. Usually the legislators defect when they are offered a good designation as a
consideration for joining a new party by leaving the existing party.
2. Sometimes the emoluments and status attached to the office of a minister is
negligible when compared to the benefits given to an ordinary MLA.
3. If the MLA is offered or promised to give Minister ship.
4. Ideological differences with the party.
5. Sometime Pressure groups will also be responsible for the defection.
6. Absence of dynamic leadership in the party.

EFFECTS OF DEFECITON:
Universal adult franchise (Election) is one of the essential ingredients of Democracy. But if
such electors become defectors, it is a big hole to the democracy, because due to defection.
1. Sometimes in States, the Government itself is thrown out of power and the minority
(Opposition) party will become the majority (ruling) party and vice versa. Therefore,
a party, which has won a majority through election, and got the mandate from the
people to form the Government, may yet fail to do so because a few of its members
defect from the party.
2. A lot of inconvenience to the bureaucracy is created and in turn the bureaucracy
becomes strong and powerful.
3. Devaluation of the Office of the Chief Minister.
4. Increase in the political corruption.
5. Moreover they cheat the voters of their constituencies who have voted them in the
name and symbol of party.

Page 6 of 16
 MERITS AND DEMERITS:
Like every other law, anti-defection laws too come with their own merits and demerits.
Looking at the positive side, the law aims at providing stability to the Government by
punishing members in case of any party shifts on their parts. Also, anti-defection laws try to
bring about a sense of loyalty of the members towards their own party. This it tries to
achieve by ensuring that the members selected in the name of the party and its support as
well as the party manifesto remain loyal to the political party of which he is a member and
its policies.14

Turning to the downsides, anti-defection laws tend to restrict the freedom of speech and
expression of the members by preventing them from expressing any dissenting opinion in
relation to party policies. However, it has been held in various judgments that the freedom
of speech provided under Article 105 and 194 is not absolute. It is subject to the provisions
of the Constitution, the Tenth Schedule being one of them. Another demerit of the law is
that it reduces the accountability of the government to the Parliament and to the people by
preventing the members of the political parties to change their parties.

THE TENTH (X) SCHEDULE:

The tenth schedule was inserted in the Indian Constitution by the 52nd amendment and it
was for the purpose of curbing unethical political defections. Further giving a brief
overview about the schedule before analyzing it, it wholly contains of 8 paragraphs out of
which the first paragraph deals with various definitions important to understand the law.
The second paragraph incorporates the disqualifications on ground of defection. The third
paragraph which was deleted vide the 2003 amendment dealt with splits within the party
and the fourth paragraph is about disqualifications not applying in case of mergers. The fifth
paragraph throws light on the various exemptions, the sixth and seventh paragraphs deal
with who decides with questions related to defection and jurisdiction of courts. Lastly, the
eight paragraph gives power to the Speaker or a Chairman to make rules for a House in

14
ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA AND THE COMMON WEALTH (Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2005) (G.C.
Malhotra)

Page 7 of 16
 order to enable smooth working of the provisions of Schedule X. 15 The second paragraph
specifically mentions that for disqualification on the ground of defection the member must
have voluntarily given up his membership to the party or he must have voted or abstained
from voting, disregarding a directive of the party. The above conditions were pertaining to
members of a political party. Further it specifies that if an independent candidate joins a
political party after the election then also he can be disqualified on the ground of defection
and lastly if a nominated member of a house joins any political party after the expiry of six
months from the date when he becomes a member of the legislature.8Thereafter there are
certain exceptions to the conditions mentioned above for disqualification of a member on
the ground of defection. Firstly, there would be no disqualification if a person is elected as
speaker or chairman and then he has chosen to resign from his party, in that scenario he can
re-join the party if he resigned from that post. The Tenth Schedule lays down that the power
is with the Chairman or the Speaker of the House to disqualify a member and even if the
complaint is about the Chairman/Speaker then a member who shall be elected by the House
shall take the decision.Lastly, dealing with the jurisdiction, it was earlier when the rule
persisted that no court would have any jurisdiction and that all proceedings related to
disqualification would be of the Parliament or in the Legislature of a state but this was
struck down by the Supreme Court and currently the anti-defection laws comes under the
judicial review of courts.

LOOPHOLES IN THE LAW:

1. Power to the Speaker-
As is evident from Rule 6 of the Tenth Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker of the
House is given wide and absolute power in deciding the cases pertaining to
disqualification of members on the ground of defection. However, it must be noted that
the Speaker still remains the member of the party which nominated him/her for the post
of Speaker. In such a scenario, it is difficult to expect that the Speaker will act impartially
in cases pertaining to his/ her political party. Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan, a member of
Congress party in the Lok Sabha, said that "by making the Speaker the sole repository of
all judgment, you are allowing him to play havoc". A solution to the problem could be

15
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (MP Jain) (LexisNexis, 8th ed. 2018)

Page 8 of 16
 that the power to decide such cases be given to High Court, Supreme Court or the
Election Commission. But looking at the current backlog of cases pending in the courts
and the controversies surrounding the Commission, the solution seems to be untenable.
Another criticism against the Speaker is that he might lack the legal knowledge and
expertise to adjudicate upon these types of matters. In fact, two Speakers of the Lok
Sabha, one being Mr. Rabi Ray in 1991 and another being Mr. Shivraj Patil in 1993 have
themselves expressed doubts on their suitability to adjudicate upon the cases related to
defections. The Dinesh Goswami committee on electoral Reforms, appointed by the V.P.
Singh Government in 1990, and the election commission recommended that the power to
decide on the issue of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule should be given to the
President or the Governor of the States, who shall act on the advice of the Election
Commission. However, it can be seen that no amendments have been made in the Act
giving effect to these recommendations and thus, the Speaker continues to exercise
undisrupted powers in matters relating to disqualification of members.
2. Judicial Review-
As per the Rule 7, which bars the jurisdiction of the courts in any matter connected with
disqualification of a member of a House, which states that it is outside the jurisdiction of
all courts including the Supreme Court under Article 136 and High Courts under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the decisions made by the Speaker in this
regard.
3. No individual stand on part of members-
According to the Rule 2 it can be seen that the anti-defection law puts the members of the
party into a bracket of obedience in accordance with the rules and policies of the party ,
restricting the legislator’s freedom to oppose the wrong acts of the party, bad policies,
leaders and bills.
4. What amounts to ‘voluntarily giving up’-
Rule 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule mentions that the member of the House would be
disqualified from the party if he voluntarily gives up his membership of the political
party.
5. Problem with merger provision-
While Rule 4 of the Tenth Schedule seems to provide some exception from

Page 9 of 16
 disqualification of members in the cases relating to mergers, there seems to be some
loophole in the law. The provision tends to safeguard the members of a political party
where the original political party merges with another party subject to the condition that
atleast two-third of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such
merger. The flaw seems to be that the exception is based on the number of members
rather than the reason behind the defection.

With an aim of ensuring free and fair elections, the parliament enacted The Representation
of People Acts 1950 and 1951. The former deals with the seats allocation, delimitation of
constituencies, voters’ qualifications whereas the latter deals with the conduct of elections,
qualification and disqualification of contestants, election offences primarily
However, it does have some limitations in the form of loopholes, some of which are given
below:
 It fails to make excessive/under-assessed campaign expenditure an offence
 Section 77 of the RPA of 1951 deals with expenditure of candidate and not political
party, in whose name large expenses are made. This leads to under-assessment of
campaign expenditure.
 Section 29B of the RPA of 1951 allows candidates to accept unlimited contribution
from non government company/non-foreign individuals and these are unaccounted
 Does not address the less popular contestants who lack funding
 No statutory backing for powers of ECI (Election commission India)
 It prohibits poll campaign only in poll-bound area, allowing a candidate to carry out
campaign via video conferencing from a different location
 Doesn’t address the opinion polls advertised by news channels.

THE ANTI-DEFECTION LAW ; INTENT AND IMPACT:

The anti-defection law was passed in 1985 through the 52 nd Amendment to the Constitution.
The Amendment added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, with an intent to curb
“the evil of political defections”. Under the anti-defection law, legislators may be
disqualified from their membership to the House if they resign from their party after being
elected, or defy the direction issued by the party leadership during a vote on any issue.

Page 10 of 16
Over the years, several contentious issues in relation to the working of the law have arisen.
Does the law, while deterring defections, restrict a legislator from voting as per his
conscience and erode his independence? Does the law lead to suppression of healthy intra-
party debate and dissent? Does it restrict representatives from voicing the concerns of their
voters in opposition to the official party position? Should the decision on defections be
judged by the Speaker who is usually a member of the ruling party or coalition, or should it
be decided by an external neutral body such as the Election Commission?
India’s experience of nearly 35 years with the anti-defection law has been instructive on its
limitations and failures. The anti-defection law was brought in as defections affected
political stability and were fuelled by the lure of political office and other pecuniary gains.
However, the law goes against fundamental democratic principles, which include the
representative role of a legislator, his ability to hold the government to account, and the
consultative process of decision-making in the House. There have also been several
instances where this law has not been able to check defections, and in some cases, defecting
members have been granted ministerial positions in the government.

EFFECT OF THE ANTI-DEFECTION LAWS:

The anti-defection law provides for disqualification of a legislator if he votes contrary to the
party whip. As a result, members are compelled to obey the party whip, in order to avoid
losing their seat in the House. The law raises questions on the role of a legislator. One, it
restrains legislators from expressing their conscience in the House. Two, it breaks the link
of accountability between the voter and the elected representative. Three, it disturbs the
balance of power between the executive and the legislature, by constraining the ability of a
member to hold the government accountable. Four, it leads to major decisions in the House
being taken by a few party leaders and empowers party leaders to compel legislators to vote
as per their instructions.

How has the anti-defection law compromised the role of a legislator?

While the anti-defection law was introduced to curb political defections and ensure stability
of government, it restrains legislators from effectively carrying out their functions. In a

Page 11 of 16
 parliamentary system, legislators are expected to exercise their independent judgment while
determining their position on an issue.16 The choice of the member may be based on a
combination of public interest, constituency interests, and party affiliations. This
fundamental freedom of choice could be undermined if the member is mandated to vote
along the party line on every Bill or motion. Even if the member has an opinion that differs
from his party leadership, he does not have the freedom to vote as per his choice. For
example, in a discussion on river water sharing between states, MPs representing
constituencies in different states may be forced to vote in a unanimous manner, despite
holding divergent views, in order to avoid the risk of disqualification from office.

How has the anti-defection law affected a citizen’s ability to hold his elected representative
accountable?
The anti-defection also law breaks the chain of accountability between elected
representatives and the voter. In India, citizens choose their member for a period of five
years. During this term, they can judge the performance of the member based on his
parliamentary record. For example, a citizen may have a strong opinion on the issue of land
acquisition. He may convey this opinion to the legislator and ask him to vote in a particular
way. The legislator would have to justify his decision if he differs from such view. Thus,
citizens have the opportunity to have their views represented in the legislature, and if they
feel the legislator has failed to do so, they can express their displeasure or even vote out the
representative in the next election. However, under the anti-defection law this accountability
mechanism breaks down. Every member is required to vote as per the direction issued by
their party. He can easily justify his voting decisions and absolve himself of this
representational responsibility to his voters by merely saying that the party whip compelled
him to vote in a particular way. For example, there may be a vote on a Bill in Parliament to
regulate fish trawling, given its environmental impact. An MP representing a coastal
constituency where large-scale fish trawling supports the local economy, may be required to
vote in favour of a Bill, if a party whip is issued. If a voter from his constituency asks him to
justify his support on the issue, the MP may say he had no choice given the anti-defection
law. If he dissented from the party line, he would lose his seat, and would be unable to work

16
Speech to the Electors of Bristol”, Edmund Burke, November 3, 1774,

Page 12 of 16
 for the citizens’ interests on other issues. This further reduces the accountability of elected
representatives to citizens.

How has the anti-defection law impacted decision-making in the House?

The anti-defection law leads to major decisions in the legislature being taken by a few party
leaders and not by the larger body of legislators. In India, political parties frequently issue
whips on matters which are subject to a vote in Parliament. This implies that anyone who
controls the party leadership can issue directions to all legislators. Thus, voting in the House
will be as per the wishes of a few party leaders rather than the beliefs of all legislators.This
reduces Parliament from a deliberative body to one where party leaders are able to
unilaterally decide the vote on an issue, without consulting with members of their political
party. As a result, to win a motion in Parliament, the government is only required to consult
with leaders of the major political parties in the House. This number for consensus may
further be reduced if a single party has majority in the House. For example, if the ruling
party has a majority in the House and the party leader issues a whip during a vote on an
issue, the government’s policy can be upheld without needing to build support of any other
MPs within the party or outside.

How do other democracies deal with the question of political defections?

The issue of political defections is not unique to India. Mature democracies, such as the US,
UK, and Canada, do not have an anti-defection law. Parties may issue directions or exert
pressure if a member goes against the party line. However, legislators are not disqualified
for defying the directives of their party. For example, whips are often issued by political
parties in the UK. If an individual MP or MLA defies the whip, they continue to retain their
membership to the legislature (although the party may take disciplinary action against
them).Currently, among the 40 countries that have an anti-defection law, only six countries
have a law that mandates legislators to vote according to party diktat. 17 The remaining
countries only disqualify legislators if they are found to resign from their party or be
expelled from it. Note that the six countries that disqualify legislators who defy the party
whip are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Guyana, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe.
17
(Csaba Nikolenyi) “Keeping Parties Together? The Evolution of Israel’s Anti-Defection Law?”, Polish Political
Science Yearbook, Volume 47(2), 2018

Page 13 of 16
 CONCLUSION:
The anti-defection law has failed to meet its objective of curbing political defections and
ensuring political stability. Further, the law has unintended consequences which refrain
legislators from effectively carrying out their duties. The legislator is not able to exercise his
own conscience and judgement, and is unable to discharge his constitutional duty to hold
the government accountable. The law has also impacted the ability of voters to hold their
elected representative accountable. For these reasons, it may be pertinent to consider
whether the anti-defection law should be repealed. Over the years, several amendments have
also been suggested to reform various aspects of the law. For instance, one of the main
objectives behind the introduction of the law was to ensure stability of the government.
Therefore, several bodies have recommended that the application of the law should be
restricted to votes which affect the stability of government, i.e., votes on no-confidence
motions and money bills.18This would also imply that the law would not apply to the upper
houses of the legislature, i.e., Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils of states. This
amendment was endorsed in a private member bill proposed by a Member of Parliament in
2010.19 Another area of reform has focused on the need for an independent adjudicating
authority to decide disqualifications under the law. Several experts have noted that the
office of the Speaker may not meet this requirement. 20 Therefore, it has been suggested that
decisions for defection cases should be taken by the President (for the centre), or Governor
(for states), on the binding advice of the Election Commission. This is similar to the practice
that is followed for deciding questions related to disqualification of legislators on other
grounds such as holding an office of profit under the Constitution.21

REFERENCES:

18
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, March
19
The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2010 (Bill No. 16 of 2010) introduced by Manish Tewari, MP
20
“255th Report: Electoral Reforms”, Law Commission of India, March 2015
21
Section 103 and 192 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Page 14 of 16
1) The Constitution (Fifty Second-Amendment) Act, 1985, available at
http://india.gov.in/govt/documents/amendment/amend52.htm (Last visited on September
17, 2011).
2) M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 62 (2010).
3) J. K. Mittal, Parlimentary Dissent, Defection and Democracy, 35 j. Indian L. Insti. Vii
(1991)
4) Anti-Defection Law, Common Cause, (July 2016), debated by Anviti Chaturvedi
5) The Anti-Defection Law explained by VibhorRelhan. (THE PRS BLOG dt. 06.12.2017)
6) K.N. Singh, Anti-Defection Law and Judicial Review,38 JPI 31 (1992) 32.
7) Gulab Gupta, Anti-Defection Law – An Introspection,1966 (IX) CILQ 127 at 130.
8) M R Madhavan, In Parliament, PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH, (Dec., 2009),
9) Jenna Narayan, Defect-Shun, Understanding Schedule X to the Constitution of India,
INDIA LAW JOURNAL, (2007),
10) Agarwal S, Anti-Defections Law inIndia, The Parliamentarian, 1986.
11) The Constitution (Fifty Second-Amendment) Act,1985.
12) Subhash, Kashyap C. Anti-Defection Law and Parliamentary Privileges, 3rdEdition.
13) Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law, 62, 2010.
14) Ideas for an alternative Anti-Defection law, 2006. (By R. Kothandaraman)
15) ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA AND THE COMMON WEALTH (Lok Sabha
Secretariat, 2005) (G.C. Malhotra)
16) INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (MP Jain) (LexisNexis, 8th ed. 2018)
17) Speech to the Electors of Bristol”, Edmund Burke, November 3, 1774,
18) (Csaba Nikolenyi) “Keeping Parties Together? The Evolution of Israel’s Anti-Defection
Law?”, Polish Political Science Yearbook, Volume 47(2), 2018
19) National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, March
20) The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2010 (Bill No. 16 of 2010) introduced by Manish
Tewari, MP
21) “255th Report: Electoral Reforms”, Law Commission of India, March 2015
22) Section 103 and 192 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Page 15 of 16
Yash Patil is a second year LL.B student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law college Pune. He
has a very keen interest in Corporate Laws, Civil Litigation, and Alterenate Dispute
Resolution (“ADR”). He is also associated with Adv. Sujay Joshi Associates and Legal
Consultants Law firm in Pune.

******

Page 16 of 16