In The Supreme Court of Zondia

TC-13 R
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA
IN THE MATTER ART. 102(2),191(2) OF SCHEDULE TENTH OF

ZONDIA CONSTITUTION
AMAR AND ORS. ……..PETITIONER
VS
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA …….RESPONDENT
W.P(C).NO./______2024
ON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA UNDER ART. 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF ZONDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………….2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………...…3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………….………..4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………...…………………………………...……6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………………..….7
STATEMENT OFISSUES….…………………….………………………...…………………….….9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...…………………………………………………………….....…10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCES…….....................................................................................................12
1. WHETHER THE PIL FILLED SIX MEMBER OF LOK SABHA OF IPA IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1.1. . There is a locus standi for filing a writ petition.
1.2. According to Schedule Tenth Sub-Paragrah 6 and 7 the court have no jurisdictions
over anti-defection law.
2. Whether the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?
2.1. Purpose of tenth schedule.
2.2. For Balancing Party Discipline and Individual Conscience.
2.3. Maintain Stability in Government of a country and state
3. WHETHER PARA. 2 (B) OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE INFRINGES UPON PARLIAMENTARY
PRIVILEGES OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
3.1. The key purpose of forming Schedule Tenth 2(b) is to uphold the parliamentary
privileges specified in article 105.
3.2. This para. does not prohibits the fundamental right attributes of article 19 given in
article 105(4).
4. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER THE Tenth SCHEDULE
MEETING THE CRITERIA OF BEING AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY.
4.1. Criteria which make him qualified for being an independent adjudicator.
4.2. The power and privileges which constitution itself provide to the speaker. .
5. Whether anti-defection is savior or slaughter of Zondian Constitution
5.1. It has more pros than cons and It is a need of every democratic country.
PRAYER........................................................................................................................................39
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

Page 2 of 35
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And
¶ Paragraph
§ Para.
AC Appeal Cases
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Art.
Cons.(Art). Constitution Article
Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal
GOV. Government
G.O Government Order
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
LJ Law Journal
LR Law Report
Ltd. Limited
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SLP Special Leave Petition
Vol. Volume

Page 3 of 35
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
1. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621

2. Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia v. Competent Authority
3. Baljit Singh Bhullar v. Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, reported in 1997 SCC OnLine
P&H 788
4. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & others.
5. Subodh Uniyal VS Speaker Legislative Assembly
6. R. v. Jones, (1972) 128 CLR 221 : 1972 HCA 44
7. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1
8. kesavananda bharti Vs. State of Kerala
9. Shri Yengkhom Surchandra Singh vs The Hon’Ble Speaker

Page 4 of 35
STATUTES
1. The constitution of India 1950

2. TENTH SCHEDULE
BOOK
1. M.T. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7TH EDITION.

2. DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3RD
EDITION.
3. PROF. M.V. PYLEE, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN INDIA.
JOURNAL
1. 2.4 JCLJ (2022) 2404 Anti-Defection Law of India and its validity in the 21st
Century by Poorna Shree
J_24_JCLJ_2022_2404_9827153644_20240417_142227_1_10[1].pdf
2. 11 Student Adv (1999) The Law Anti-Defection : An Appraisal by H.R. Saviprasad
–and Vinay Reddy
J_11_Student_Adv_1999_116_9827153644_20240417_142457_1_6[1].pdf
3. (2009) 2 NUJS L Rev 127 ‘Quit or be Disqualified’ : DOES CONTINUING AS
SPEAKER INVITING EXPLUSION FROM ONE’S PARTY WARRANT
DISQUALIFOCATION UNDER THE TENTH SCHEDULE ? by Deepak Raju and Karthy
Nair J_2009_2_NUJS_L_Rev_127_9827153644_20240423_164022_1_9[1].pdf
MISCELLANEOUS
1. ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA CONTOURS AND CONCERNS

https://issuu.com/theparliamentarian/docs/parl2023iss4finalonline_single_reduced/s/4
0187452
2. Anti-defection law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-defection_law_(India)
DATABASES: SCC ONLINE, SUPREME TODAY, INDIAN KANOON, WIKIPEDIA

Page 5 of 35
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HAS HEREIN APPROACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA
THROUGH A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 321 READ WITH ARTICLE 1422 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF ZONDIA IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXISTENCE OF
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW CONCERNING NATIONAL IMPORTANCE,
IMMEDIATE NECESSITY OF DELIVERY OF COMPLETE JUSTICE, AND
VIOLATION OF SEVERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
(1) India Const. Art. 32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is
guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution 2 India Const. Art. 142 Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to
discovery, etc ( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so
passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be
prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such
manner as the President may by order prescribe
(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects
the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment
of any contempt of itself.

Page 6 of 35
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Zondia, a democratic nation with a rich history, traditions, and culture, is comprised
of 29 States and 8 union territories, with a total population of 1.25 Crore. The
country follows a written constitution that embodies the spirit of socialism in its
preamble. Notable features of Zondia's constitution include social justice,
federalism, an independent judiciary, and the separation of powers.
2. The legislative powers in Zondia are outlined in the seventh schedule of the
Constitution, which consists of three lists: the Union List, State List, and Concurrent
List. Additionally, the Zondian Constitution's Tenth Schedule, known as the "Anti-
Defection Law," aims to prevent lawmakers from switching parties without facing
consequences. It also provides provisions for disqualification. Since gaining
independence, Zondia has embraced democratic socialism as its cherished political
system.
3. Within the corridors of power in Zondia, a captivating political narrative unfolds,
shaped by the winds of electoral change and the pursuit of legislative justice.
Following the triumph of the Bhartiya Nagrik Association (BNA) in the 2014 and
2019 general elections, defeating the Indian People Association (IPA), a new era of
governance commences as the nation prepares for the upcoming 2024 elections. On
January 10, 2024, the government introduces the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
(AI) Bill, 2024 (referred to as the Bill). The voting for the bill is scheduled for
February 25, 2024.
4. Amidst the political landscape, Lok Sabha Members Amar, Sneha, Rahul, Neha,
Vikram, and Aisha, all belonging to the IPA party, find themselves in the midst of a
constitutional crisis. Despite their party affiliation, these six Members of Lok Sabha
are faced with the challenge of balancing their loyalty to the party with their
personal beliefs. They believe that supporting the bill would be beneficial for their
respective constituencies.
5. The IPA president, who opposes the bill, sees it as a potential threat to the future
and issues a whip on February 15, 2024, demanding unwavering allegiance to the
party line, instructing them to vote against the bill.
6. Undeterred by the pressure from their party, the six Members of Lok Sabha follow

Page 7 of 35
their conscience and vote against the party directive. In response, the IPA president
swiftly files an application before the Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha on March 9, 2024,
seeking the disqualification of these six MLAs, utilizing the Anti-Defection Law.
7. After careful examination, on March 25, 2024, the Lok Sabha Speaker disqualifies
the six Members of Lok Sabha. However, undeterred by their disqualification, the
MLAs decide to challenge the constitutionality of para. 2(1)(b) of the Tenth
schedule by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court. They
argue that this para. violates their fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression, as well as their privilege under Article 105 of the Constitution. They
contend that the Anti-Defection Law suppresses genuine dissent, rendering it
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is now scheduled to hear the case.

Page 8 of 35
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
THE PETITIONER VERY RESPECTFULLY PUTS FORTH TO THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA, THE FOLLOWING QUERIES:
1. WHETHER THE PIL FILLED SIX MEMBER OF LOK SABHA OF IPA IS

2. WHETHER THE TENTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONCTITUTION

PROHIBITING HONEST AND GENUINE DISSENT DESERVES TO BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
3. WHETHER SECTION 2 OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE INFRINGE

UPON PRIVILEGES OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 105 OF THE
CCONSTITUTION?
4. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER

THE Tenth SCHEDULE MEETING THE CRITERIA OF BEING AN
INDIPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY?
5. WHETHER ANTI-DEFECTION IS SAVIOR OR SLAUGHTER OF ZONDIA
CONSTITUTION?

Page 9 of 35
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-1: WHETHER THE PIL FILLED SIX MEMBER OF LOK SABHA OF IPA IS
It is humble submitted before the court that,There is no locus standi for filling these case
before the court because there is no violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner in
article 19 and there is no violation of principles of natural justice has been occurred in the
case pf petitioner. The Court in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC
1621, held that writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is available when
principles of natural justice are violated. In the case of a petitioner, the Hon'ble speaker holds
the power to disqualify the six members of the Lok Sabha due to defection held as per sub-
paragraph 2(b) which state that “If he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to
any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority
authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such
political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by
such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or
abstention.” Therefore, the petitioner's case is not maintainable within the court's jurisdiction.
ISSUE-2: WHETHER THE TENTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONCTITUTION

PROHIBITING HONEST AND GENUINE DISSENT DESERVES TO BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that,The essence of governance in a

democratic society lies in the representation of the people's will, guaranteeing that their
elected representatives act in accordance with their mandate. However, the longstanding issue
of defection has persistently undermined the integrity of this process, posing a significant
threat to the very foundation of democratic principles.The Anti-Defection Law was
established as a measure to combat this problem and acts as a safeguard for political decorum
in our legislative assemblies. Its primary objective is to prevent elected officials from
defecting to other parties without just cause, with the goal of preserving the legitimacy of
electoral mandates and fostering stability in the political sphere. Therefore, Anti-defection
should not be declared unconstitutional.

Page 10 of 35
ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 2 (b) OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE INFRINGE UPON
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before the court that, para. 2(1)(b) of the Tenth schedule does
not infringe upon the parliamentary privileges outlined in article 105 of the Zondian
Constitution because, the Tenth schedule, also referred to as the Anti-Defection law,
was established to safeguard against political opportunism and uphold governmental
stability by discouraging lawmakers from changing affiliations. As per this
legislation, any elected official who defects from their original party or goes against
their party's mandates can face disqualification from their legislative position. The
argument presented asserts that para. 2(1)(b) of schedule Tenth does not infringe
upon the parliamentary privileges enshrined in article 105 of the constitution, since
legislators are obligated to adhere to party instructions during voting sessions. The
legal representative for the respondent contends that the behaviour exhibited by the
six Lok Sabha members was insubordinate, as they consciously voted in opposition to
their party's agenda, potentially warranting disqualification under para. 2(1)(b) of
schedule Tenth . Furthermore, the respondent's counsel highlights the significance of
parliamentary privileges as emphasized in articles 118 and 208, underscoring the
responsibility of members to comply with party directives.
ISSUE 4:- WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER THE Tenth
SCHEDULE MEETING THE CRITERIA OF BEING AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY
MACHINERY?
It is humbly submitted before the court by the respondents that, the esteemed Speaker,
in Parliament is a neutral decision-maker under the Tenth schedule, ensuring fairness
and order. They can disqualify unruly members and settle disputes between parties.
The Lok Sabha Speaker's authority is emphasized, with no court having jurisdiction
over disqualification matters. As an independent adjudicator, the Speaker resolves
disputes between parties. Although the Speaker's decisions were challenged in court,
the court upheld the Speaker's disqualification rulings. The respondents assert that the
Speaker possesses the authority to act as a fair judge in these cases. The Speaker's
decisions are conclusive, except in cases of malicious intent. Therefore, there should
be no doubt regarding the Speaker's role in parliamentary proceedings. The sixth
paragraph of the Tenth Schedule does not impede the resolution of disputes through

Page 11 of 35
legal means. The Speaker/Chairman possesses the power to settle disputes with
judicial authority. The inclusion of the 'finality clause' is of utmost importance as it
enables the majority to reach a definitive decision.
Issue 5- Whether anti-defection is savior or slaughter of Zondian Constitution?
It is humbly submitted before the court by the respondents that, The drawbacks that
anti-defection laws may bring, their benefits often surpass these drawbacks. While
there are worries about limiting individual freedom, suppressing dissent, and
potentially hindering political realignment, these laws are essential for maintaining
political stability, enforcing party discipline, and protecting the integrity of the
electoral process. By deterring opportunistic actions, preventing unethical deals, and
improving accountability, anti-defection laws play a significant role in upholding a
strong democratic system. Although it is crucial to address the issues and obstacles
linked to these laws, their overall positive impact on political stability, governance
efficiency, and ideological consistency establishes them as a valuable asset in the
democratic framework. Therefore, Anti-defection law is saviour of
Zondia constitution.

Page 12 of 35
ADVANCE ARGUMENTS
ISSUE :1 Whether the PIL filed by the Six Member of Lok Sabha of IPA is Maintainable or
not?
It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that, this case is not maintainable under
the jurisdiction of court of Zondia because [1.1] There is no locus standi for filing a writ
petition [1.2] According to Schedule Tenth Sub-Paragrah 6 and 7 the court have no
jurisdictions over anti-defection law.
[1.1] There is no locus standi for filing a writ petition
1. It is humble submitted before the court that,There is no locus standi for filling these case
before the court because there is no violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner
in article 19 and there is no violation of principles of natural justice has been occurred in
the case pf petitioner. The Court in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1962 SC 16211, held that writ jurisdiction under Article 322 of the Constitution is
available when principles of natural justice are violated. In the case of a petitioner, the
Hon'ble speaker holds the power to disqualify the six members of the Lok Sabha due to
defection held as per sub-paragraph 2(1)(b) which state that “If he votes or abstains
from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which
he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without
obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority
and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or
authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention.” Therefore, the
petitioner's case is not maintainable within the court's jurisdiction.
2. It is humble submitted before the court that,The term Locus Standi, in general, refers to
the right of a party to bring an action in a court of law. The person whose legal right is
infringed is said to have the locus to file a suit before the court and any third party who
is unrelated to the dispute or whose right is not infringed is ousted from filing a suit in a
court of law. However the petitioner will not fall under the terms of locus standi because
there was no violation of any fundamental rights of six members. The six members of
party has voted against the party directive and under the schedule tenty sub-paragraph
2(b) of constitution if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any
direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority
authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of
such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been
condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date
1
Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621
2
Article 32

Page 13 of 35
of such voting or abstention. Hence, due to the above fact the locus standi is not
maintainable in the case of petitioner.
3. It is humble submitted before the court that, There could be instances when a legislator
may have an opinion different from the one taken by his or her party. For instance, in
the United Kingdom, MPs in the House of Commons thrice rejected the withdrawal plan
which was negotiated by the government for leaving the European Union.5 Similarly, in
India, when political parties took official position on Bills such as the farm laws, there
could be MPs who may disagree with the party line. There could even be instances when
a Bill may go against the interests of an MP’s constituency but his party has decided to
support it. Given the provisions of the Anti-Defection Law in India, legislators cannot
vote their conscience or for their constituency interests if such vote is contrary to the
stand taken by their party. In other words, MPs can neither exercise their judgement nor
go according to the wishes of their electorate. The wishes of the party trump all other
considerations.
4. It is humble submitted before the court that, In the case of Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia v.
Competent Authority3 appointed under Anti Defection Act, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine
Guj 3219, and submits that the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are not comparable
either to a trial in a Court of law or a departmental proceedings initiated for disciplinary
action against an employee. The scope of judicial review in respect of proceedings before
such Tribunal is limited. The power of judicial review may be exercised on the ground of
violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of petitioner Under the tenth
schedule of the constitution, the speaker possesses the right to disqualify six members of
Lok Sabha. Therefore, the petitioner's case cannot be sustained in the supreme court.
5. It is humble submitted before the court that ,In the case of Baljit Singh Bhullar v. Speaker,
Punjab Vidhan Sabha, reported in 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 788 4, rendered by the Punjub
and Haryana High Court, it has been held that as per sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 65 of
the Tenth Schedule, the proceedings regarding disqualification of a member of the House
shall be deemed to be proceedings in the Legislature of a State within the meaning of
Article 2126. Under clause (i) of Article 212, the validity of any proceedings in the
legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged
irregularity of procedure.
6. It is humble submitted before the court that, Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto
Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & others7. [Subodh Uniyal VS Speaker Legislative Assembly8]
The law recognizes the practical need to prioritize the proprieties of political and personal
conduct over theoretical assumptions of freedom of conscience, dissent, or intellectual
freedom. Unprincipled defection is considered a political and social evil, and the
legislature perceives it as such. In the case of the petitioner the petitioner have priorities
3
Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia v. Competent Authority
4
Baljit Singh Bhullar v. Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, reported in 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 788
5
sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 6
6
Article 212
7
Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & others
8
Subodh Uniyal VS Speaker Legislative Assembly

Page 14 of 35
the freedom of conscience over the ideology of their political party and betrayed their
party during the voting against the bill and due to this the speaker have disqualified them
on the ground of defection against their party under para 2(b)9 of tenth schedule . Hence,
due to above reason this case of petitioner should be rejected to be maintained in the
court.
7. It is humble submitted before the court that, In the realm of parliamentary proceedings,
particularly in cases of defection, necessitates a careful equilibrium between judicial
intervention and parliamentary privilege. The concept of parliamentary privilege
empowers legislatures with the autonomy to handle their internal affairs, which includes
taking disciplinary actions against members involved in defection. Granting the judiciary
the authority to intervene in instances of anti-defection could undermine parliamentary
sovereignty and encroach upon the legislature's jurisdiction. The interpretation and
application of anti-defection laws frequently involve complex political considerations and
party dynamics, which may not always align with legalistic interpretations. Additionally,
judicial intervention in such matters could lead to delays in legislative processes,
impeding the functioning of democratically elected institution, Moreover, the judiciary's
handling of defection cases gives rise to concerns regarding its proficiency and
knowledge in political matters. Unlike legal disputes, defection cases frequently require
subjective evaluations of political loyalty, party discipline, and legislative intent, which
may exceed the scope of judicial expertise.
8. In conclusion, while the anti-defection law is essential for maintaining the integrity of
parliamentary democracy, the question of its judicial sustainability requires a careful
evaluation of constitutional principles, separation of powers, and the independence of the
legislature.
[1.2] According to Schedule Tenth Sub-Paragrah 6 and 7 the court have no

jurisdictions over anti-defection law.
9. It is humble submitted before the court that, Schedule Tenth Paragraph 610 state that-:
Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection.— (1) If any
question arises as to whether a member of a House has become subject to disqualification
under this Schedule, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Chairman or, as
the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his decision shall be final:
10. Provided that where the question which has arisen is as to whether the Chairman or the
Speaker of a House has become subject to such THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(Tenth Schedule) 351 disqualification, the question shall be referred for the decision of
such member of the House as the House may elect in this behalf and his decision shall be
final.
(2) All proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in relation to any
question as to disqualification of a member of a House under this Schedule shall be
deemed to be proceedings in Parliament within the meaning of article 12211 or, as the
9
para 2(b)
10
Paragraph 6
11
article 122

Page 15 of 35
case may be, proceedings in the Legislature of a State within the meaning of Article
212.
It is humble submitted before the court that, Schedule Tenth Paragraph 712 state that-:
Bar of jurisdiction of courts - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no
court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the
disqualification of a member of a House under this Schedule.
11. That the Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is valid. Its provisions do
not suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights of elected Members of Parliament
and the Legislatures of the States. It does not violate their freedom of speech, freedom of
vote and conscience as contended.
12. Indeed, in constitutional and legal theory, it is urged,, there is really no ouster of
jurisdiction of Courts or of Judicial Review as the subject-matter itself by its inherent
character and complexities is not amenable to but outside judicial power and that the
ouster of jurisdiction under Paragraph 7 is merely a consequential constitutional
recognition of the non-amenability of the subject-matter to the judicial power of the State,
the corollary of which is that the Speaker or the Chairman,, as the case may be, exercising
powers under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule function not as a statutory Tribunal
but as a part of the State's Legislative Department. Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule is
one of the main provision which are intended to provide a punishment for the evil of
unprincipled and unethical political action.In the present case of petitioner the petitioner
have done the evil political act towards party by cross-voting against their own political
party and because of this, they should be disqualified under para 2(1)(b) of tenth schedule
and this case is also not maintainable in court under para7 of tenth schedule.
13. It is humble submitted before the court that, Paragraph 2 of the Tenth schedule to the
constitution is legitimate. The provisions within it do not undermine the democratic rights
of elected Members of Parliament and the legislatures of the States. It does not infringe
upon their freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience; nor does it contravene any
rights or freedom under Article 105 and 194 of the Constitution The provisions are
salutory and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by
curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections.
14. The Tenth Schedule does not impinge upon the rights or immunities under Article
105(2)13 of the Constitution. The freedom of speech of a Member is not an `absolute
freedom. That apart, the provisions of the Tenth Schedule do not purport to make a
Member of a House liable in any "Court" for anything said or any vote given by him in
Parliament
15. It is humble submitted before the court that, the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment)
Act, 198514 says: "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. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by
the President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce in the current
12
Paragraph 7
13
Article 105(2)
14
Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985

Page 16 of 35
session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection
and fulfilling the above assurance." The primary objective of the tenth schedule is to
safeguard the stability of the government and maintain party discipline. However, in this
particular case, six members have violated the party whip by voting against the bill,
thereby going against the party's instructions. As a consequence, they are now being
disqualified under the anti-defection law.
16. It is humble submitted before the court that, G. V. Mavalankar : The Office of Speaker,
Journal of Parliamentary Information, April 1956, Vol. 2, No. 1, p.3315] Pundit Nehru referring
to the office of the Speaker said : "....The speaker represents the House. He represents the
dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the
nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and
liberty. Therefore, it is right that that should be an honoured position, a free position and
should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.
17. It is humble submitted before the court that, the office of the Speaker is held in the
highest respect and esteem in Parliamentary traditions. The evolution of the institution of
Parliamentary democracy has as its pivot the institution of the Speaker. He is said to be
the very embodiment of propriety and impartiality. He performs wide ranging functions
including the performance of important functions of a judicial character. It would, indeed
be unfair to the high traditions of that great office to say that the investiture in it of this
jurisdiction would be vitiated for violation of a basic feature. of democracy. It is
inappropriate to express distrust in the high office of the speaker, merely because some of
the speakers are alleged, or even found, to have discharged their functions not in keeping
with the great traditions of that high office. The Robes of the Speaker do change and
elevate the man inside.
18. The investiture of the determinative jurisdiction in the Speaker would by itself stand
vitiated as denying the idea of an independent adjudicatory authority. We are afraid the
criticism that the provision incurs the vice of unconstitutionality ignores the high status
and importance of the office of the Speaker in a Parliamentary democracy. The office of
the speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in Parliamentary traditions. The
evolution of the institution of Parliamentary democracy has as its pivot the institution of
the Speaker. `The Speaker holds a high, important and ceremonial office. All questions of
the wellbeing of the House are matters of Speaker's concern'. The Speaker is said to be
the very embodiment of propriety and impartiality. He performs wide ranging functions
including the performance of important functions of a judicial character.
19. It is humble submitted before the court that, In parliamentary democracy, the office of the
Speaker is held in very high esteem and respect. There are many reasons for this. Some of
them are purely historical and some are inherent in the concept of parliamentary
democracy and the powers and duties of the Speaker. Once a person is elected Speaker,
he is expected to be above parties, above politics. In other words, he belongs to all the
members or belongs to none. He holds the scales of justice evenly irrespective of party or
person, though no one expects that he will do absolute justice in all matters; because, as a
15
G. V. Mavalankar : The Office of Speaker, Journal of Parliamentary Information, April 1956, Vol. 2, No. 1,
p.33

Page 17 of 35
human being he has his human drawbacks and shortcomings. However, everybody knows
that he will intentionally do no injustice or show partiality. "Such a person is naturally
held in respect by all." In the petitioner's case, the speaker did not misuse his power under
paragraph 6 of anti-defection lawe. Nevertheless, in order to uphold justice and maintain
discipline within the political party, the speaker made the decision to disqualify the six
members.
20. It would be unfair to discredit the significance of this Jurisdiction by claiming that it
violates a fundamental aspect of democracy, thereby compromising the esteemed
traditions of the high office. It is inappropriate to harbor skepticism towards the Speaker's
position solely due to the alleged or proven misconduct of certain individuals who failed
to uphold the esteemed customs associated with this influential role. The Speaker's robes
have the ability to bring about change and inspire greatness within.
21. In the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others 16the supreme court said that
contention that the vesting of adjudicatory functions in the Speakers/Chairmen would by
itself vitiate the provision on the ground of likelihood of political bias is unsound and is
rejected. The Speakers/Chairmen hold a pivotal position in the scheme of Parliamentary
democracy and are guardians of the rights and privileges of the House. They are expected
to and to take far reaching decisions in the functioning of Parliamentary democracy.
Vestiture of power of adjudicate questions under the Tenth Schedule in such a
constitutional functionaries should not be considered exceptionable.
22. In conclusion, there must be so construed as not to unduly impinge on the said freedom of
speech of a member. This would be possible if Paragraph 2(1)(b)17 is confined in its scope
by keeping in view the object underlying the amendments contained in the Tenth
Schedule, namely, to curb the evil or mischief of political defections motivated by the
lure of office or other similar considerations. The said object would be achieved if the
disqualification incurred on the ground of voting or abstaining from voting by a member
is confined to cases where a change of Government is likely to be brought about or is
prevented, as the case may be, as a result of such voting or abstinence or when such
voting or abstinence is on a matter which was a major policy and programme on which
the political party to which the member belongs went to the polls. For this purpose the
direction given by the political party to a member belonging to it, the violation of which
may entail disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(b), would have to be limited to a vote on
motion of confidence or no confidence in the Government or where the motion under
consideration relates to a matter which was an integral policy and programme of the
political party on the basis of which it approached the elaborate. The voting or abstinence
from voting by a member against the direction by the political party on such a motion
would amount to disapproval of the programme of the basis of which he went before the
electorate and got himself elected and such voting or abstinence would amount to a
breach of the trust reposed in him by the electorate.
16
Supra¶ 22
17
Paragraph 2(1)(b)

Page 18 of 35
Issue2- Whether the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting honest and genuine
[2.1]dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?
23. It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that, the tenth schedule of the
Constitution didn’t prohibiting honest and genuine dissent and deserves to be upheld as
constitutional because [2.1] Purpose of tenth schedule [2.2] For Balancing Party
Discipline and Individual Conscience, [2.3] Maintain Stability in Government of a
country and state.
[2.1] Purpose of tenth schedule-:
[2.1.1.] INTRODUCTION
24. It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that, Democracy is said to be a
mechanism of the people, by the people, and for the people. The right of the public to rule
over themselves through their elected representatives. Essentially means the citizens'
mandate can make or break a democratic country. But this cannot be much farther from
the truth. The practicality of the working of democracy has far been botched by the new
Page: 2405 advancements in the political sphere. The mandate of the public no longer
governs the government. Any mandate is swiftly changed with a resort and a camp. The
laws specifically made too have not been successful in mitigating this culture in Indian
politics. Now and again, we see governments falling and rising all over the country, and
the old phrase “Aaya ram, Gaya ram” seems to be returning to the field. The recent
political turmoil in Maharashtra has put this law back in focus. Rebel Shiv Sena leader
Eknath Shinde might have succeeded in toppling the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas
Aghadi (MVA) government.
25. WHAT IS ANTI DEFECTION LAW? - AN OVERVIEW “A defector is a person who
gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, changing sides in a
way which is considered illegitimate by the first state.”
26. Defection in India is governed under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It
seeks to disqualify or penalise individual party members-MPs and MLAs for leaving a
party and joining another. The legislation, bought in response to the toppling of multiple
governments by party-hopping MLAs in the 1960s, called defection an evil-natured
national concern and sought to outlaw defection and keep the very foundation of our
democracy strong. The said law was added to the Indian Constitution under Schedule 10
through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 .
[2.1.2] HISTORY OF ANTI-DEFECTION LAW
27. It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that,The phenomenon of defection
is not something that is peculiar to India. It is prevalent in democracies all over the world,
which have adopted the party system. In Great Britain, famous politicians like Winston
Churchill, William Gladstone and Ramsay Macdonald used it during their careers as
political tactics. Similarly, in Australia, Canada and the U.S.A., this practice of defection
has been noticeable.

Page 19 of 35
28. In India, the need to tackle defection arose only after 1967. Prior to 1967, these were only
about 500 instances of defection and that too, mostly at the state level. Such defections
occurred mostly for ideological reasons and not due to the lure of office. These defections
further strengthened the fabric of Indian democracy and curbing such defection would
have been akin to undermining and eroding the freedom required setup. After the Fourth
General Elections the country however, the practice of defections took an alarmingly
unprecedented turn. Many legislators switched sides thanks to the use of office and as
abruptly switched back when the promises made to them weren't fulfilled. Between 1967
and 1972 more than 50% of the legislators switched sides at least once. This practice of
switching sides to gain office came to be known as 'Horse-Trading'.
29. The first attempt to analyse this malady came in December, 1967 when the Lok Sabha
appointed a high level committee to look into the problem and to make recommendations.
The committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the then Union Home Minister
Shri Y.B. Chavan and consisted of legal and political luminaries such as M.C. Setalvad,
Jayaprakash Narayan, H.N. Kunzru, M. Kumaramangalam and Madhu Limaye among
others.The Committee placed its report before the Parliament in February 1969. The
committee's recommendations included that
i) Political parties should arrive at a code of conduct amongst themselves.
ii) In cases of defection for ideological reasons, the defector should be
disqualifiedfrom continuing as a legislator but is allowed to stand again.
iii) In cases of defection due to the lure of the office or pecuniary gains the defector
should not only be disqualified from office but also be prevented from standing for a
specified period.
30. What emerges is that no definite stand for or against defection was taken. It was proposed
to regulate defection and only a certain category of defections were sought to be
prohibited. However these recommendations were not acted upon immediately. It was
only in May 1973 that the government introduced the Constitution (32 nd Amendment)
Bill, 1973 to give effect to recommendations made 4 years earlier. However there was a
strong opposition to the bill and it became a matter of public debate. This Bill was then
referred to a joint committee of the 2 Houses. However the Lok Sabha was dissolved
before this committee could complete its deliberations and the Bill lapsed.& It was not
until 5 years later when the Janata Party came to power in 1978 that an attempt was made
to bring forward a Bill on defection. However this was opposed at the stage of
introduction itself not only by the opposition but also by some members of the ruling
party and the motion for introducing the Bill was withdrawn.
31. It was not until the Rajiv Gandhi Government came to power 7 years later that any move
was made in this direction. It began on 17th January 1985 with the Presidential address to
both Houses of Parliament in which he said that the Government intended to introduce a
bill relating to the matter. To fulfil this promise made by the President, the Government
introduced the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha just a week later on
24th of January.10 The Prime Minister had prolonged the talks with the opposition
groups; it was after this that the Bill was finally passed. (The Lok Sabha assed it on 30th
and the Rajya Sabha on 31st, January.) The Act came into force with effect from 1st of
March after having received Presidential assent on 15th of February. The Constitution

Page 20 of 35
(52nd Amendment) Act, 1985 amended Acts 101, 102, 190 and 191 of the Constitution
providing further grounds for disqualification from membership of Parliament and the
State Legislatures.
32. The Provisions of the Xth Schedule:
i) A member of a house is disqualified from membership if he voluntarily gives it up
or if he votes or abstains from voting contrary to the directions given by the party.
ii) This disqualification shall not apply in case of a split i.e., 1/rd or more of the
members of a party defect. It shall also not apply in the event of a merger i.e., 2/rd of
the members or more merge with any other party. (These provisions have been
subjects of many debates)
iii) The speaker, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman are allowed to give up their
membership after being elected to the office.
iv) The speaker or Chairman is the person to decide questions of disqualification.
v) The jurisdiction of the courts regarding the disqualification of any member has
been barred.
[2.1.3] Amendments to the Anti-Defection Law:
33. It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that,The Anti-Defection law has
been amended multiple times since it was first introduced in order to solve various issues
and shortcomings in the initial law. The specifics of every law amendment are as follows:
34. The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985: India’s anti-defection statute was enacted by the
52nd Amendment Act. The Tenth Schedule, which specifies the procedures for
disqualifying elected officials for defection, was added to the Constitution by the statute
amending it.
35. The 61st Amendment Act, 1988: By amending the Tenth Schedule, the 61st
Amendment Act made it possible for political parties to merge without being disqualified
. The purpose of this amendment was to stop political parties from abusing the law to
remove elected officials who wanted to join another party from office.
36. The 65th Amendment Act, 1991: Tenth Schedule amendments made possible by the
65th Amendment Act allowed for a separation of political parties without resultant
disqualification. This amendment was introduced to stop political parties from abusing
the legislation to remove elected officials who wanted to leave their party from office.
37. The 91st Amendment Act, 2003: Article 191 of the Constitution was changed by the
91st Amendment Act to provide that elected officials will be removed from office if they
leave their party or disobey party rules. The purpose of this amendment is to stop elected
officials from leaving their party in order to avoid being disqualified by the Anti-
Defection law.
38. In conclusion, the Attempts have been made throughout the Anti-Defection Law’s
creation to ensure the stability and account ability of the government while
simultaneously ensuring that the law upholds the rights of elected officials.

Page 21 of 35
[2.2] For Balancing Party Discipline and Individual Conscience -:
41 .It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that,The essence of governance
in a democratic society lies in the representation of the people's will, guaranteeing that
their elected representatives act in accordance with their mandate. However, the
longstanding issue of defection has persistently undermined the integrity of this
process, posing a significant threat to the very foundation of democratic principles.
42 The Anti-Defection Law was established as a measure to combat this problem and
acts as a safeguard for political decorum in our legislative assemblies. Its primary
objective is to prevent elected officials from defecting to other parties without just
cause, with the goal of preserving the legitimacy of electoral mandates and fostering
stability in the political sphere.
43 R. v. Jones, (1972) 128 CLR 221 : 1972 HCA 4418, cited In Rajya Sabha elections there is
voting by open ballot and it has been so introduced to sustain the foundational values
of party discipline and to avoid any kind of cross-voting thereby ensuring purity in the
election process. They have been treated as core values of democracy and fair
election. It is worth to note that in a voting for Members of the Council of States, the
nature of voting by an elector is a grave concern. It is because in such an election,
there is a party whip and the elector is bound to obey the command of the party. The
party discipline in this kind of election is of extreme significance, for that is the
fulcrum of the existence of political parties. It is essential in a parliamentary
democracy. The thought of cross-voting and corruption is obnoxious in such a voting.
44 The Anti-Defection Law serves as a powerful tool to discourage political
opportunism. By enforcing penalties and disqualifications for legislators who switch
parties, it effectively prevents elected officials from betraying the trust of the voters
for their own personal gains or vested interests. This crucial deterrent effect acts as a
safeguard, ensuring that representatives remain answerable to their constituents and
prioritize their interests over the temptations of power or patronage.
45 In the case of Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 119, followed The
procedure by which an election has to be held should further the object of free and fair
election and as Parliament noted that in election to the Council of States, members
elected on behalf of political parties misuse the secret ballot and cross-vote and there
had been breach of discipline by political parties for collateral and corrupt
considerations, it legislated to provide for an open ballot. The principle of secrecy is
not an absolute principle though the said principle is meant to ensure free and fair
elections. However, the higher principle is free and fair election and purity of election.
If secrecy becomes a source for corruption then sunlight and transparency have the
capacity to remove it. It can only be said that legislation pursuant to a legislative
policy that transparency will eliminate the evil that has crept in would hopefully serve
the larger object of free and fair elections.
46 The law promotes unity and solidarity among political parties, which helps in
achieving efficient governance. By requiring lawmakers to follow the party's stance
18
R. v. Jones, (1972) 128 CLR 221 : 1972 HCA 44
19
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1

Page 22 of 35
on important issues, it fosters consensus-building and collaborative decision-making.
This ultimately leads to a cohesive party structure, crucial for pushing legislative
priorities and executing public policies. The Anti-Defection Law plays a crucial role
in holding elected representatives accountable to both their party and the electorate.
By mandating legislators to explain their decisions based on party guidelines, it
fosters transparency in political processes. This transparency not only fosters trust
between officials and constituents but also cultivates a sense of duty and honesty in
public service.
47 In conclusion, the Anti-Defection Law stands as a cornerstone of our democratic
framework, upholding the principles of political discipline, accountability, and
stability. By deterring defections, fostering party cohesion, and enhancing
transparency, it reinforces the integrity of our electoral process and strengthens the
foundation of democratic governance. As custodians of democracy, it is incumbent
upon us to uphold and protect the sanctity of this law, thereby preserving the essence
of representative government for generations to come.
[2.3] Maintain Stability in Government of a country and state.
48 It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that, Introduced in 1985 as part
of the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the Anti-Defection Law holds
great significance in preserving government stability. Its primary objective is to
discourage elected legislators from switching parties, thereby preventing political
defections. By doing so, this law aims to promote political stability and safeguard the
continuity of the elected government's term without being undermined by frequent
defections.
49 The Anti-Defection Law upholds the idea that elected officials must remain loyal to
the party under which they were elected, following its policies and principles. This
law mandates the disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) or state legislators
who choose to relinquish their party membership or go against the party's directives
during legislative votes.
50 The primary aim of the Anti-Defection Law is to safeguard the stability of the
government by preventing frequent shifts in the ruling party or coalition's structure as
a result of defections. Defections may result in government breakdown, leading to the
need for mid-term elections or the establishment of a new government, ultimately
disrupting policy consistency and governance.
51 The Anti-Defection Law has been instrumental in decreasing the occurrences of
defections and fostering political stability in India. It has effectively put a stop to the
trend of lawmakers changing parties for personal benefits or political expediency, a
common practice prior to the implementation of the law.disqualification petitions
until the dissolution of the legislature before elections.
52 It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that, The Anti-Defection Law
has faced criticism due to its restriction on the freedom of individual legislators to
express dissent or deviate from their party's position on specific matters. Critics argue
that this law undermines the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy,

Page 23 of 35
which require legislators to advocate for the concerns of their constituents and
exercise their own judgment, but the essence of the anti-defection law is summarized
by the Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & others 20.
[Subodh Uniyal VS Speaker Legislative Assembly21] The law recognizes the practical
need to prioritize the proprieties of political and personal conduct over theoretical
assumptions of freedom of conscience, dissent, or intellectual freedom. Unprincipled
defection is considered a political and social evil, and the legislature perceives it as
such. The court defers to the legislative wisdom and perception, emphasizing the need
to adopt appropriate means to achieve legitimate ends within the scope of the
Constitution.
53 Despite the criticisms it has faced, the Anti-Defection Law continues to serve as a
crucial measure to prevent political instability and frequent shifts in government. By
upholding the mandate bestowed by the electorate, this law guarantees that the
government formed after elections can operate efficiently throughout its entire term,
without being disrupted by defections.
54 In conclusion, The Anti-Defection Law is a key factor in preserving stability within
the government by deterring defections and fostering political stability. Although
there are varying viewpoints on the law, its overall contribution to ensuring effective
governance and decreasing political uncertainties is indisputable.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 2 (b) OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE INFRINGE

UPON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 105 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before the court that para. 2(1)(b) of the Tenth schedule does
not infringe upon the parliamentary privileges outlined in article 105 of the of the
constitution because [3.1] The key purpose of forming Schedule Tenth 2(1)(b) is
to uphold the parliamentary privileges specified in article 105. [3.2] This para.
does not prohibits the fundamental right attributes of article 19 given in article
105(4)
[3.1] The key purpose of forming Schedule Tenth 2(b) is to uphold the parliamentary
privileges specified in article 105.
55 It is humbly submitted before the court on the behalf of the respondent that main
reason behind the formation of the Tenth schedule known as Anti-Defection law is to
prevent political opportunism and maintain the stability of governments. By
20
Supra ¶ 52
21
Supra ¶ 52

Page 24 of 35
discouraging legislators from switching parties, it aims to ensure that elected
representatives remain loyal to the party they were elected under.
56 Under this law, if an elected representative voluntarily gives up their membership
from the political party on whose ticket they were elected, or if they vote or abstain
from voting against the party's directives (whip), they can be disqualified from their
seat in the legislature. The disqualification can be initiated by the concerned political
party or any other member of the legislative body.
57 It is humbly submitted before the court by the respondent of the counsel that schedule
Tenth 2(1)(b) does not violate the parliamentary privileges outlined in article 105
of the constitution. Article 105 ensures that every member of the Lok Sabha exercises
their rights as granted by law and the parliament. While each member has the power
to speak in the parliament, they do so under the guidance of their respective party. It is
the duty of party members to vote in favour of the party and abstain from voting in
accordance with party directives.
58 The respondent counsel wishes to argue that the actions of the six Lok Sabha
members were ignorant and undisciplined. These members are well aware that they
are bound by party rules and regulations, and they have acknowledged that they voted
against the party's interests. Schedule Tenth 2(1)(b) clearly defines the grounds for
disqualification that if a person votes against the party or abstains from voting, then
the party leader may issuing a notice for disqualification of a particular member
within 15 days to the speaker and speaker decision should be conclude final.
59 The respondent's counsel humbly submits to the court that articles 118 and 208 under
the parliament and privileges clearly state that the legislative body has the authority
and right to establish rules regarding their code of conduct and business. Therefore,
the petitioner has no right to challenge the rules and laws prescribed in schedule Tenth
, as this power was vested in the constitution itself.
61. The Constitution itself emphasizes the need to avoid interference in legislative affairs. To
address this concern, provisions were incorporated into articles 11822, 20823, and 21224.
22
Art.118-Rules of procedure:-
(1) Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. (3) The President, after consultation with the
Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker of the House of the People, may make rules as to the
procedure with respect to joint sittings of, and communications between, the two Houses..
23
Art.208-Rules of procedure:-
(1) A House of the Legislature of a State may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.

Page 25 of 35
These provisions are designed to prevent party members from manipulating judicial
authorities for their own benefit. It is imperative for the legislature to take necessary steps
to uphold integrity and stability within society for the overall well-being of the nation.
62. It is humbly submitted before that court in the case of Baljit Singh Bhullar Vs. Speaker
Punjab Vidhan Sabha25 it is been held that as per para. 2 to para. 6 of the Tenth-
Schedule, that proceeding regarding disqualification of a member of the House shall be
deemed to be Proceeding In the Legislature of a state within the meaning of article 212,
The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a state shall not be called in question
on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
63. It is respectfully presented to the court that, based on the aforementioned case,
parliamentary actions should not be questioned on any grounds related to the conduct and
code of procedure established by the parliament for the smooth functioning of
parliamentary affairs. This is because the rules and regulations of the parliament are based
on article 105, article 212, article 118, and article 208. These rules and regulations are
essential for maintaining stability in the government and ensuring the harmony between
the judiciary and the legislature. It is humbly submitted before the court that the Tenth
schedule does not violate any fundamental rights mentioned in article 19, as supported by
article 105 sub-clause 4. Unless there is a clear dictatorship occurring in the parliament,
there are no valid grounds for pursuing and filing this case.
64. It is respectfully brought to the attention of the court that article 105 26 explicitly states
that individuals do not possess the privilege to vote and refrain from voting against the
party's interests and decisions. Furthermore, no individual shall be held accountable for
their statements or actions in parliament. This implies that the speaker, in relation to the
(3) In a State having a Legislative Council the Governor, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly and the Chairman of the Legislative Council, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to
communications between the two Houses
24
Art.212-Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature:-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the
ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution
for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject
to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
25
Supra.
26
Article 105-Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of
Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or
any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect
of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or
proceedings.

Page 26 of 35
contempt of schedule 10, is ineligible to participate in any court proceedings or trials as
per article 105 which ensure the safety of member as well as the speaker in the
parliamentary business for smooth transaction of opinions and thought originate in the
minds of party member for the benefits of the constitution as well as for the welfare of the
people.
[3.2] Schedule-Tenth para. 2(b) does not prohibits the fundamental right attributes
of article 19 given in article 105(4)
65. It is humbly submitted before the court that the provisions of the tenth schedule,
specifically 2(1)(b), do not in any way prohibit the fundamental rights outlined in article
19 as provided in article 105(4). The right vested in article 105(4) ensures that no
fundamental right of article 19 is deprived. However, when dealing with the tenth
schedule, the procedure of this privilege is governed by a combination of article 212,
article 118, and article 208. This is why article 105(4) is always accompanied by these
combined para.s, which interpret the true meaning of article 105(4). It is important to note
that this provision is not intended to act in contradiction to the tenth schedule, but rather
to support the fact that the conduct of business in parliamentary proceedings is subject to
rules and regulations put in place for the stability and smooth functioning of the
government and discussions, as well as to prevent malicious actions by party members
during elections, such as changing and switching parties based on their own whims and
interests..
66. It is humbly submitted before the the that discerning the genuine and malicious intentions
of Party members is a challenging task, as their actions and benefits obtained behind
closed doors remain unknown. Therefore, it is imperative to establish stringent laws and
regulations to combat corruption effectively. In the case of Subodh Uniyal vs. Speaker
legislature Assembly27 it’s has been observe that The law recognise the practical need to
prioritise the properties of political and personal conduct over theoretical assumptions of
freedom of conscience, dissent, or Intellectual freedom. Unprincipled defection is
considered a political and social evil, and the Legislature perceives it as such. As mention
before matter in fact the action petitioner of betraying their own party during the time of
voting, voted against the interest and decision of the party And due to this, the speaker
27
Supra.

Page 27 of 35
have disqualified them on the ground of defection against their party under para. 2(1)(b)
of Tenth schedule.
67. It is humbly submitted before the court that from the aforementioned case, it is now
evident that freedom of speech in Parliament is crucial. However, it should be exercised
in a manner that does not hinder or disrupt the parliamentary proceedings and business.
While freedom of speech is necessary, it should be guided by the principles and
objectives of the political party to which the members belong. Consequently, members
should align themselves in a way that fulfils both the ideology and goals of the party, as
well as the party's interests. This is essential for a party to have members who remain
loyal during elections and the passage of bills. Maintaining democracy requires the
opposition party to not be weakened by its own members. If party members do not act in
good faith, there is a risk of manipulation and corruption within the opposition party
through various means, such as monetary influence. If such a situation arises, it can be
argued that the parliament is not functioning in a democratic manner, as internal
corruption undermines its integrity. To prevent such a scenario, it is necessary for party
members to inform their party leader at least 15 days in advance if they intend to vote
against the party's decision or interests. This way, parties can avoid being surprised by
betrayal from their own members
68. CONCLUSION:-The Tenth schedule, also known as the Anti-Defection law, was created
to prevent political opportunism and maintain government stability by discouraging
legislators from switching parties. According to this law, if an elected representative
leaves the party they were elected under or votes against the party's directives, they can be
disqualified from their legislative seat. The respondent argues that schedule Tenth
2(1)(b) does not violate parliamentary privileges outlined in article 105 of the
constitution, as members are expected to follow party directives when voting. The
respondent's counsel believes that the actions of the six Lok Sabha members were
undisciplined, as they knowingly voted against their party's interests, leading to possible
disqualification under schedule Tenth 2(1)(b). The respondent's counsel points out that
articles 118 and 208 emphasize the importance of parliamentary privileges and the duty
of members to follow party directives.

Page 28 of 35
ISSUE 4:- WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER
THE Tenth SCHEDULE MEETING THE CRITERIA OF BEING AN
INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the speaker while deciding the case under the
Tenth schedule is meeting the criteria of being an independent adjudicatory machinery
because [4.1] Criteria which make him qualified for being an independent
adjudicator [4.2] The power and privileges which constitution itself provide to the
speaker.
[4.1] Criteria which make him qualified for being an independent adjudicator
69. It is humbly submitted before the court that The Speaker while deciding the case. Under
the Tenth schedule have met in the criteria of being an independent adjudicator
machinery Because article itself provide speaker power by provision to being adjudicator
between the houses and party which are in dispute Speaker plays a crucial role in the
parliament He has to follow the following duties such as maintaining discipline providing
opportunity allowing party to speak, allowing members to put their opinion disqualifying
the undisciplined always regard and rules and regulations Speaker always move to
maintain. Of the Parliament He was appointed by the president and nominated by
majority of votes alleging him of not dedicated machinery is totally wrong and
Scandalous because his sole purpose of being in a speaker is to resolve dispute between
two parties assault any problem which may occur in the parliament between the houses
Nobody can deny the affiliation and relation between higher profiles because nobody is a
computer Every politician is a human being And having such relations is common when
you are in such a high position in Parliament people may greet, and people may try to
have such relationship But when the time to do your duty in the parliament speaker
always set aside all their relationship and their ambiable friends in Corner because
following duty of being a selfless and unbiased speaker is topmost priority and duty to
follow.
70. It is humbly submitted before the court that, while deciding the case under the Tenth
schedule, speaker always met the criteria of being an independent adjudicator Machinery
because to being an adjudicator the first thing is fair trial and fair Manifestation of Laws
Para. 2 and para. 6 and 7 provide grounds and power of speaker while deciding the case
under Tenth schedule Which says that speaker have the power to decide the case The
criteria number one if this case will fall under the jurisdiction of speaker or not, schedule

Page 29 of 35
Tenth Para. 6 And para. 7 provide the jurisdiction and authority to the speaker that he can
adjudicate over the disputes And the second criteria his that, whether he has the criteria to
decide the case alone or not Para. 7 Tenth schedule says that Decision is the final
decision which means that no court can alter the decision of speaker But the judiciary
may provide its review because no government is apex before the law. Both judiciary and
Legislature have the duty to look out for each other but they can’t Interfere in the internal
businesses of parliament. The separation of power is necessary while considering the
fraternity and Brotherhood between the both government Is at the same pace or not. In the
case of the of kesavananda bharti Vs. State of Kerala 28 third criteria of a speaker to
being an independent speaker are that even judges in judiciary are fail to maintain close
relationship between higher profile even though they are restricted to attain parties and
meet personally with unknown people they make friends similarly it is nearly impossible
for the speaker to do such impossible task by targeting the affiliation and relationships
with the party. During the oath every judicial judge take oath that they shall always fulfil
their duty with dignity and unbiased way, similarly speaker after holding such post they
have to follow such duty same even though they have connection with the parties and
houses they set aside all connection while fulfilling the duties in their daily businesses in
the parliament.
71. It is humbly submitted before the court that as according to the fact 6 member of lok
sabha who decided to vote against their particular party interest cause of that they are in
sufficient ground to be called as offender of prescribed rules and regulation given under
schedule Tenth of the Zondian Constitution. When party leader complaint about such
incident it is the duty of speaker to check the fact and hear all relevant excuses for such
action and decide upon its own discretion whether they are liable of punishment or not.
Therefore speaker here fulfil the fourth criteria that is checking all the relevancy in the
dispute.
72. Respondent are also want to urged that not only speaker fulfils that much criteria he even
fulfil the fifth criteria that is allowing aggrieved persons to put his point or statement or
allowing them a opportunity to be heard and prove himself innocent therefore all this
criteria make the speaker post eligible for being an absolute adjudicator machinery who
can hear and order and decide case according to its own good conscience and true and
unbiased manner
28
Id at 20.

Page 30 of 35
[4.2] The power and privileges which constitution itself provide to the speaker.
73. Its humbly submitted before the court that the power and privileges which constitution
itself provide to the speaker is absolute because our constitution is the written constitution
drafted by the well learned echelon of our nation we they though there should be a power
vested in the speaker that means they are well aware that its hold great importance in the
constitution to run the government with stability to appreciate the contention, it is
necessary to first examine the constitutional scheme. That the Constitution is the suprema
lex in this country is be yond the pale of any controversy. All organs of the state derive
their authority, jurisdiction and powers form the constitution and owe allegiance to it.
This includes this Court also which represents the judicial organ.
74. In the case of kesavananda bharti Vs. State of Kerala 29 at paragraph 1004. it is held by
the privy council that legislation to be ultra vires only when the act could not be
challenged on the ground that they were contrary to fundamental principles of justice. The
Court found certain basic feature of the Constitution that include, besides supremacy of
the constitution, the republican and democratic form of Government, and the separation
of powers between the legislature, the executive and the executive and the judiciary. Its
has been cleared in the above arguments that the power and privileges of speaker in the
Zondian Constitution is not ultravirus but its is given with considering all aspect of
constitution specially about the fundamental right.
75. It is humbly submitted before the court that the power and privileges which the speaker
have in the para. 6 of tenth schedule30 in the Zondian Constituion says about the power of
Speaker of having to order final decision in the matter of dispute between the parties
houses of Parliament (supra in issue 2.1), this provision make him the adjudicator over
the houses of parliament by vesting the right to provide the judgment like judicial
authority, respondent want to urged that Lok sabha Speaker have the power like Quasi-
judicial authority it’s like the tribunal but conducted by the higher bodies of the
government. In the case of Shri Yengkhom Surchandra Singh vs The Hon’Ble
Speaker31 the court held that the Speaker’s decision to disqualify nine MLAs in line with
29
(1973) 4 SCC 225
30
Para6. Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection.— (1) If any question arises as
to whether a member of a House has become subject to disqualification under this Schedule, the question shall
be referred for the decision of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his
decision shall be final: Provided that where the question which has arisen is as to whether the Chairman or the
Speaker of a House has become subject to such disqualification, the question shall be referred for the decision of
such member of the House as the House may elect in this behalf and his decision shall be final.
31
WP(C) No. 316 of 2020.

Page 31 of 35
the anti-defection law was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in a landmark decision
in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Case in July 2020. The Speaker may evaluate
disqualification petitions and make the decision.
76. It is humbly submitted before the court that in the para. 7 of the tenth schedule32 says
about the bar of jurisdiction which is no court shall have the any jurisdiction in respect of
any matter connected with the disqualification of a member of House under this Schedule.
Which constitution itself provide the right and authority of being an independent
adjudicator of solving issues between the parties therefore speaker may be called as the
independent adjudicator. In the case of political Crisis in Karnataka (2019): In July
2019, several MLAs resigned from the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, putting the
government’s survival in jeopardy and causing a political crisis. The Speaker disqualified
the MLAs based on the anti-defection law, which was challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Speaker’s order banning the MLAs from seeking office until the end of their term
was overturned by the court, however the MLAs’ disqualification in November 2019 was
upheld. Meghalaya Speaker’s Decision (2019): In January 2019, the Meghalaya Speaker
disqualified five MLAs under the anti-defection law. The disqualification was affirmed
by the High Court notwithstanding the MLAs’ challenges to the ruling. The matter was
brought before the Supreme Court, which declined to overturn the Speaker’s ruling in
July 2019.
77. It is humbly submitted before the court that the respondents respectfully assert and argue
that the speaker possesses all the necessary power, authority, and rights to serve as an
impartial adjudicator in the aforementioned cases. Not only does this designation make
the speaker an adjudicator, but it also establishes the scope of their jurisdiction, ensuring
that their decisions are deemed final. Although there are avenues for judicial review, it is
important to note that the ability to alter judgments lies solely with the Speaker of Lok
Sabha. Unless there is evidence of malicious intent, the speaker's capability to act as an
independent adjudicator in parliamentary proceedings should not be questioned. In the
case of Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and ors.It was thus held that the para 6 of the Tenth
Schedule does not introduce a non-justiciable area. The power to resolve the disputes of
the Speaker/Chairman is a judicial power. The important construction is that of the
‘finality clause’ which paved a way for the majority to reach the judgment.
32
Para 7. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.—Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no court shall have
any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member of a House under this
Schedule.

Page 32 of 35
78. CONCLUSION- The council is respectfully informed that, the Speaker, in fulfilling their
role in the Parliament, consistently acts as an impartial adjudicator when making
decisions under the Tenth schedule. The Speaker's crucial responsibilities include
maintaining order, allowing all parties to express their views, disqualifying those who act
inappropriately, and upholding the rules and regulations of the Parliament. Despite
personal relationships or affiliations, the Speaker always prioritizes fairness and
impartiality. The power and privileges of the Speaker, as stated in para. 6 of the Tenth
schedule of the Zondian Constitution, grant them the authority to make final decisions in
disputes between parties. It is important to note that the Lok Sabha Speaker's role is
emphasized in this matter. Para. 7 of the Tenth schedule states that no court has
jurisdiction over matters related to the disqualification of a House member under this
Schedule. The Speaker, as an independent adjudicator, resolves disputes between parties.
In previous cases, such as the political crisis in Karnataka in 2019 and the Meghalaya
Speaker's Decision in 2019, the Speaker's decisions were challenged in court, but the
court upheld the Speaker's disqualification rulings. 1. The speaker ousted five MLAs due
to anti-defection law, and the High Court upheld the decision. The Supreme Court refused
to reverse the speaker's ruling. The respondents claim the speaker has the power to be a
fair judge in these cases. The speaker's decisions are final, except for cases of bad
intentions. Therefore, the speaker's role in parliamentary proceedings should not be
doubted.
Issue 5- Whether anti-defection is savior or slaughter of Zondian Constitution?
It is being humbly submitted by the council of respondent that, the Anti defction law
is savior of the constitution because [5.1] It has more pros than cons and It is a need
of every democratic country.
[5.1] It has more pros than cons and It is a need of every democratic country.
79. It is being humbly submitted by the council of respondent that, The Criticism has
been directed many times towards the Anti-Defection Law for constraining the ability
of individual legislators to express disagreement or diverge from their party's official
position on specific topics. Opponents argue that this legislation undermines the
foundational values of parliamentary democracy, which mandate legislators to speak
up for the needs of their constituents and make independent decisions. but the essence
of the anti-defection law is summarized by the Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto
Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & others. [Subodh Uniyal VS Speaker Legislative
Assembly33] The law recognizes the practical need to prioritize the proprieties of
33
Supra¶ 79

Page 33 of 35
political and personal conduct over theoretical assumptions of freedom of conscience,
dissent, or intellectual freedom. Unprincipled defection is considered a political and
social evil, and the legislature perceives it as such. The court defers to the legislative
wisdom and perception, emphasizing the need to adopt appropriate means to achieve
legitimate ends within the scope of the Constitution.
It is being humbly submitted by the council of respondent that, In the present era, it is crucial
for every democratic nation to embrace the anti-defection law as a necessity because-;
 Promotion of political stability: Maintaining political stability is facilitated by the

anti-defection law, which effectively prevents frequent defections and the
destabilization of governments.
 Preservation of the mandate: It ensures that the mandate given by the electorate is
upheld, and elected representatives do not switch sides for personal gains.
 Curbing horse-trading: The practice of horse-trading, wherein defecting legislators
are enticed with monetary rewards, positions, or other incentives, is strongly
discouraged by the law.
 Strengthening party discipline: The threat of disqualification acts as a deterrent,
effectively fostering party discipline and cohesion among legislators, thereby
minimizing the occurrence of defection.
 Preventing political opportunism: The law plays a crucial role in preventing
political opportunism by discouraging legislators from switching parties solely for
personal gain instead of sticking to their ideological beliefs.
 Protecting democratic values: It upholds the principles of democratic governance
by ensuring that elected representatives remain accountable to their parties and the
electorate.
 Facilitating effective governance: By advocating for political stability, the law
indirectly enhances governance and policy implementation, ultimately leading to
more effective results.
 Encouraging ideological commitment: It encourages legislators to remain
committed to the ideologies and manifestos of their respective parties.
 Enhancing public trust: The law helps in enhancing public trust in the political
system by ensuring that elected representatives remain loyal to their parties and
the mandate given by the voters.
80. Therefore, despite the drawbacks that anti-defection laws may bring, their benefits
often surpass these drawbacks. While there are worries about limiting individual
freedom, suppressing dissent, and potentially hindering political realignment, these
laws are essential for maintaining political stability, enforcing party discipline, and
protecting the integrity of the electoral process. By deterring opportunistic actions,
preventing unethical deals, and improving accountability, anti-defection laws play a
significant role in upholding a strong democratic system. Although it is crucial to
address the issues and obstacles linked to these laws, their overall positive impact on
political stability, governance efficiency, and ideological consistency establishes them
as a valuable asset in the democratic framework. Therefore, acknowledging the
necessity for careful implementation and regular evaluation, it can be concluded that
the advantages of anti-defection laws outweigh their disadvantages.

Page 34 of 35
“PRAYER”
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,

REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO
1. Decalre that the petition has not maintainable

2. Uphold the decision of speaker of the legislature.
3. Upheld the quasi-juridicial power of speaker is constitutional
4. Uphold the constituency of schedule tenth
AND PROVIDE ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

Page 35 of 35

In The Supreme Court of Zondia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Supreme Court of Zondia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-13 R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA

IN THE MATTER ART. 102(2),191(2) OF SCHEDULE TENTH OF

AMAR AND ORS. ……..PETITIONER

THE HON’BLE SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA …….RESPONDENT

ON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA UNDER ART. 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF ZONDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………….2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………….………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………...…………………………………...……6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………………..….7

1. WHETHER THE PIL FILLED SIX MEMBER OF LOK SABHA OF IPA IS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

1. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

1. The constitution of India 1950

1. M.T. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7TH EDITION.

1. ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA CONTOURS AND CONCERNS

DATABASES: SCC ONLINE, SUPREME TODAY, INDIAN KANOON, WIKIPEDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

THE PETITIONER HAS HEREIN APPROACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF ZONDIA

THE CONSTITUTION OF ZONDIA IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXISTENCE OF

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW CONCERNING NATIONAL IMPORTANCE,

IMMEDIATE NECESSITY OF DELIVERY OF COMPLETE JUSTICE, AND

VIOLATION OF SEVERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

THE PETITIONER VERY RESPECTFULLY PUTS FORTH TO THE HON’BLE

1. WHETHER THE PIL FILLED SIX MEMBER OF LOK SABHA OF IPA IS

2. WHETHER THE TENTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONCTITUTION

3. WHETHER SECTION 2 OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE INFRINGE

4. WHETHER THE SPEAKER WHILE DECIDING THE CASE UNDER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

ISSUE-2: WHETHER THE TENTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONCTITUTION

It is being submitted by the counsel of the respondent that,The essence of governance in a

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

Issue 5- Whether anti-defection is savior or slaughter of Zondian Constitution?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

[1.1] There is no locus standi for filing a writ petition

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

[1.2] According to Schedule Tenth Sub-Paragrah 6 and 7 the court have no

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

[2.1]dissent deserves to be declared unconstitutional?

[2.1] Purpose of tenth schedule-:

[2.1.2] HISTORY OF ANTI-DEFECTION LAW

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

[2.1.3] Amendments to the Anti-Defection Law:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

[2.3] Maintain Stability in Government of a country and state.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-