Kapil Sibal urges SC to interpret anti-defection law on mergers
UPSC / SSC current affairs note · Polity
Why in news
Senior advocate and MP Kapil Sibal has personally filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of the anti-defection law, specifically the merger provision under the Tenth Schedule. The petition comes amid several defections and mergers, including the Shiv Sena split that led to the collapse of the MVA government in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court has agreed to list the matter for hearing.
Background
The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, also known as the anti-defection law, was added in 1985 to prevent political defections. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule provides an exception for mergers, allowing a group of legislators to merge with another party if at least two-thirds of the members agree. However, the interpretation of this provision has been contentious, especially in cases like the Shiv Sena split where the Speaker's decision to allow merger of MPs has been challenged.
Key facts
Kapil Sibal filed a personal petition in the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of the anti-defection law, specifically Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.
The petition cites instances of defection and merger affecting Shiv Sena (UBT) and Trinamool Congress.
Sibal argued that the composition of Parliament should not change through illegal defections and mergers.
The Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Monday.
Shiv Sena (UBT) has also moved a petition challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to allow merger of six of its nine MPs with the rival Sena party led by Eknath Shinde.
The Court sought responses from the Centre and the Lok Sabha Secretariat on the Sena UBT petition.
Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule carves out an exception to disqualification for defections, allowing mergers if two-thirds of members agree.
Prelims pointers
- Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (Anti-Defection Law)
- Paragraph 4 of Tenth Schedule: Merger exception
- Lok Sabha Speaker's role in deciding defection/merger cases
- Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32
- Shiv Sena split and MVA government collapse (2022)
Mains angles
- Discuss the effectiveness of the anti-defection law in preventing political defections and mergers.
- Critically examine the role of the Speaker in adjudicating defection cases and the need for judicial oversight.
- Analyze the impact of defections and mergers on the stability of governments and parliamentary democracy in India.