The full story of Anti-Defection Law Challenge

The Supreme Court observed 'enormous issues' in enforcing the anti-defection law, calling it 'the making of the members of Parliament'.

The bench issued notice on a petition by senior advocate Kapil Sibal challenging the interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, which allows legislators to avoid disqualification via party merger.

The court noted that such issues typically belong to the legislative and political domain.

The petition was directed to be tagged with a pending challenge concerning political defections in Goa.

Sibal argued that defects in the law enable engineered defections that topple governments, which the bench acknowledged but said it was for Parliament to address.

Kapil Sibal challenged the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule in the Supreme Court, arguing that the merger provision allows legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and tagged the plea with a similar Goa matter concerning MLA defections.

Sibal argued the provision could allow a minority party to become a majority or vice versa, with 'huge repercussions on our polity'.

The bench observed the Tenth Schedule was enacted by Parliament and said it was for the legislature to devise an appropriate mechanism.

The plea refers to recent instances of MPs from AAP, Trinamool Congress, and Shiv Sena (UBT) joining the BJP by invoking the merger provision.

Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre on Kapil Sibal's PIL challenging the Tenth Schedule's merger provisions.

The bench noted 'enormous issues' with the anti-defection law.

Sibal argued the merger loophole allows electoral verdicts to be changed.