Ayush Singh/06

The constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, also known as the
Anti-Defection Law, has been challenged in several court cases. The main arguments against
the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule are that it:

 Violates the freedom of speech and expression of legislators.

 Violates the right to vote of the people.

 Is arbitrary and unreasonable.

 Takes away the power of judicial review from the courts.

Here is the landmark case that have upheld the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule:

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992):

Facts

 When the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, also known as the "anti-defection law,"
was established in 1985, the law governing lawmakers' disqualification and the
Speaker's authority to decide such cases was added to the statute book. The Tenth
Schedule faced a constitutional challenge, which the Supreme Court resolved in
"Kihoto Hollohan."
 The Supreme Court's main concern in this issue was whether the Speaker's powerful
position violated the doctrine of basic structure, which is the judicial rule that certain
fundamental provisions of the Constitution cannot be changed by modifications by
Parliament.

Analysis

It was argued that the anti-defection statute is incompatible with freedom of speech, dissent,
and conscience in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu. According to the Supreme Court,
the act is designed to deal with unprincipled defections that are not protected by intellectual
liberty, freedom of conscience, or the right to dissent. Because of this, even though this rule
has certain unintended consequences, it is essential in today's society when dealing with
political concerns. A few issues and questions brought up by this law are addressed in the
judgment in Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu and others. The court subsequently ruled that the
measure did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech or the fundamental principles of
parliamentary popular government.The Supreme Court held that the Tenth Schedule is
constitutional because it is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression
of legislators. The Court also held that the Tenth Schedule does not violate the right to vote of
the people because it does not prevent the people from electing the representatives of their
choice.The court held that the Speaker's decision can be subject to judicial review, but only
on certain limited grounds, such as mala fide (bad faith), violation of principles of natural
justice, and other procedural irregularities. However, the court also emphasized that the
Speaker's decision regarding disqualification is final, and courts cannot question it on the
merits of the decision.

This case established an important balance between the autonomy of the legislative bodies to
manage their internal affairs and the need for judicial oversight to prevent abuse of power. It
clarified the extent to which the courts can intervene in matters of disqualification under the
Anti-Defection Law. As it established a compromise between the requirement for judicial
scrutiny and the idea of the autonomy of the legislative bodies to handle their internal affairs.

The constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule is still a matter of debate. Some argue that it is
necessary to prevent the instability caused by political defections, while others argue that it is
an infringement on the democratic rights of legislators. It attempted to uphold the separation
of powers between the legislative and the court while preventing the Speaker from making
arbitrary judgments.An important problem in Indian politics, the scope of judicial review in
cases involving defection, was clarified by this case.

Following Developments:

 It's important to note that this case has continued to have an impact on following
defection and Speaker power cases in different Indian states.
 Current legal and political debates center on how to interpret and put into practice the
concepts articulated in this decision.