Manish Tewari seeks new anti-defection law; SC hears PIL on Tenth Schedule
UPSC / SSC current affairs note · Polity
Why in news
Congress MP Manish Tewari submitted an Adjournment Motion in Lok Sabha seeking discussion on a new Anti-Defection Law to curb opportunistic defections. This coincides with a Supreme Court hearing on a PIL by Kapil Sibal challenging the merger provisions of the Tenth Schedule, with the court noting 'enormous issues'.
Background
The Anti-Defection Law is enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. It provides for disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection, with exceptions for mergers and splits. The law has been criticized for curbing dissent and being misused.
Key facts
Manish Tewari submitted an Adjournment Motion Notice in Lok Sabha for discussion on a new Anti-Defection Law.
The motion aims to prevent mass political defections driven by opportunism, not ideology.
Supreme Court is hearing a PIL by Kapil Sibal challenging the merger provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
The SC noted 'enormous issues' with the Tenth Schedule during the hearing.
The Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.
The law allows merger of a political party if two-thirds of members agree, but this provision is under challenge.
Tewari's move seeks to balance curbing defections with protecting dissent.
Prelims pointers
- Tenth Schedule: Anti-Defection Law
- 52nd Amendment Act, 1985
- Adjournment Motion: a parliamentary device to draw attention to a matter of urgent public importance
- Lok Sabha: lower house of Indian Parliament
- Supreme Court of India
- PIL: Public Interest Litigation
- Kapil Sibal: senior advocate and former Union Minister
- Manish Tewari: Congress MP
Mains angles
- GS2 Polity: Anti-Defection Law - provisions, criticisms, and need for reform
- GS2 Polity: Role of Parliament and legislative procedures (Adjournment Motion)
- GS2 Polity: Judicial review of constitutional amendments and parliamentary privileges
- GS2 Polity: Balance between party discipline and individual dissent in democracy