14 May 2026·The Hindu

The law does not favour AIADMK rebels

In this note

1. At a Glance

Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) decides fate of 25 AIADMK MLAs voting for TVK govt in TN confidence motion, against party whip [1].
Tests interplay of defection disqualification, party splits, Speaker's role, applying fresh 2023 SC precedent to a live state crisis.
High-value UPSC peg: constitutional law + federalism + current TN politics, all in one.

25 of AIADMK's 47 MLAs voted for TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam) govt led by CM C. Joseph Vijay in a confidence vote; deepens split after AIADMK finished third in recent TN Assembly poll [1].
AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) + 21 loyalists voted against govt [1].
Rebel faction led by ex-ministers S.P. Velumani, C.V. Shanmugam [1].
Question: do 25 dissidents attract disqualification under anti-defection law [1].

Tenth Schedule added to Constitution by 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, to curb "aya ram gaya ram" defections.
Disqualifies member who voluntarily gives up party membership or votes against party whip without prior permission.
91st Amendment, 2003 removed the earlier "split" exception (one-third defection immunity), tightened merger clause to two-thirds.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): SC upheld Speaker's adjudicatory role under Tenth Schedule, subject to judicial review.
Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) — Constitution Bench, decided May 2023, arising from Maharashtra Shiv Sena split (Shinde vs Thackeray); clarifies fate of numerically larger dissident group and Governor's limits in ordering floor tests [1].

Item	Detail
Governing provision	Tenth Schedule, Constitution of India (inserted by 52nd Amendment, 1985)
Split immunity	Abolished by 91st Amendment, 2003
Merger exception	Requires two-thirds of party's legislators to merge with another party
Adjudicating authority	Speaker/Chairman of House, subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992)
Key 2023 precedent	Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary to Governor of Maharashtra, Constitution Bench, May 2023 [1]
Current case	TN — AIADMK (47 MLAs), 25 voted for TVK govt, 22 (incl. EPS) against, in confidence vote for CM C. Joseph Vijay [1]
Rebel strength	25/47 — short of two-thirds (needed ~31–32) required for lawful "merger" defence [1]

Legal / Constitutional

Rebels lack two-thirds strength, so cannot claim protection via "merger" clause — leaves them exposed to disqualification [1].
2023 Subhash Desai verdict addresses fate of dissidents numerically larger than loyalist group — applied here to test if it aids/hurts AIADMK rebels [1].
Disqualification petition must go to Speaker first; Governor's/Speaker's neutrality repeatedly SC-flagged issue.

Administrative / Governance

Party president (EPS) faces dilemma: seek disqualification → risk formal split + bypolls + further marginalisation of AIADMK; don't act → rival faction (Velumani-Shanmugam) may gain internal control [1].
Speaker's discretion/delay in deciding defection petitions remains a known implementation bottleneck nationally.

Historical

Echoes Shiv Sena (2022–23) and past AIADMK/DMK splits (e.g., 1972 ADMK founding, post-Jayalalithaa 2017 factionalism) as precedent-testing grounds for Tenth Schedule.

Ethical / Governance

Raises horse-trading, intra-party democracy, and voter-mandate-vs-legislator-autonomy questions central to anti-defection philosophy.

Recent TN Assembly election: AIADMK finished third [1].
TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam), led by actor-politician C. Joseph Vijay, forms government; CM Vijay moves confidence motion [1].
25 AIADMK MLAs cross-vote for TVK govt; EPS + 21 vote against — article dated 14 May 2026 [1].

Tenth Schedule inserted by 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
"Split" defence removed by 91st Amendment Act, 2003.
Merger defence requires two-thirds of a party's legislators.
Landmark case on Speaker's quasi-judicial defection role: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).
2023 Constitution Bench ruling on defection/floor test: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Maharashtra, delivered May 2023 [1].
That case arose from Shiv Sena split (Shinde faction vs Thackeray faction), Maharashtra, 2022.
TN CM in current episode: C. Joseph Vijay, TVK party.
AIADMK strength referenced: 47 MLAs; 25 voted for TVK govt; 22 (incl. Palaniswami) against [1].
AIADMK general secretary: Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS).
Rebel faction leaders named: S.P. Velumani, C.V. Shanmugam — both former ministers [1].
Disqualification adjudicated first by Speaker, reviewable by courts.
AIADMK finished third in recent TN Assembly election [1].

GS-II: Indian Constitution — features, comparison with other countries, amendments, significant provisions (Tenth Schedule); functioning of Legislature; separation of powers, judicial pronouncements.
GS-II: Salient features of Representation of People's Act; Parliament/State legislatures — structure, functioning.
Possible Mains stems:
"Critically examine the effectiveness of the anti-defection law in curbing political horse-trading, with reference to recent state-level crises."
"Discuss the role of the Speaker as adjudicator under the Tenth Schedule and the tensions this creates with principles of natural justice."
"In light of the Subhash Desai (2023) judgment, evaluate whether the anti-defection law adequately addresses intra-party splits."

52nd & 91st Constitutional Amendments — direct statutory base of this topic.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — foundational anti-defection case law.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — Governor's discretion vs Speaker's role, cited alongside Subhash Desai.
Shiv Sena split & Maharashtra floor test (2022) — closest precedent event.
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 — party symbol disputes accompanying splits.
Office of Speaker — neutrality debate — recurring governance/ethics theme.
Federalism and Governor's discretionary powers — Article 174 (floor test), 163.

Confusing "split" (abolished 2003) with "merger" (still valid, needs two-thirds) — aspirants often assume one-third defection is still protected.
Mixing up Kihoto Hollohan (1992) — establishes Speaker's role — with Subhash Desai (2023) — deals with Governor's floor-test power and numerically larger dissident groups.
Assuming Tenth Schedule applies automatically; disqualification requires a petition + Speaker's decision, not automatic on cross-voting.
Wrong amendment number: Tenth Schedule inserted by 52nd Amendment (not 91st); 91st amended the Schedule's split clause.
Assuming Governor decides defection matters — it's the Speaker/Chairman, not Governor.