UPSC Prelims 2025 Q88: Tenth Schedule and Anti-Defection — Explained
Consider the following statements:
I. If any question arises as to whether a Member of the House of the People has become subject to disqualification under the 10th Schedule, the President's decision in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Union Ministers shall be final.
II. There is no mention of the word 'political party' in the Constitution of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- I only
- II only
- Both I and II
- Neither I nor II
Answer: (d) Neither I nor II
Statement-wise explanation
- I: incorrect — Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule says that any question on disqualification for defection goes to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha), and that this decision is final. The President and the Council of Ministers have no role in it. The statement mixes this up with Article 103. Under Article 103, the President decides disqualifications under Article 102(1), such as an office of profit or unsound mind. Even there, the President acts on the opinion of the Election Commission, not the Council of Ministers.
- II: incorrect — The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 added the Tenth Schedule, and it uses the term 'political party' throughout. Paragraph 1 defines 'legislature party' and 'original political party' by reference to it. Paragraph 2(1) disqualifies a member who voluntarily gives up membership of their 'political party', or who votes against its direction. Paragraph 4 deals with the merger of a 'political party'. So the word is in the Constitution, even though the original 1950 text did not have it.
How to eliminate
Statement I has two clear signs that it is wrong. First, the Council of Ministers advising the President on whether an MP is disqualified would let the ruling party judge its opponents. No disqualification provision in the Constitution works that way. Even Article 103 uses the Election Commission's opinion, not the Cabinet's. Second, the question's own topic is the anti-defection law, which is known as a Speaker-decided process. Statement II is a trap built on half-knowledge. It is true that the original Constitution did not mention political parties. But the 1985 amendment brought the term in through the Tenth Schedule, so 'no mention' is too absolute. If you know only one fact, remember this one: the Tenth Schedule exists to punish leaving a 'political party', so the term must appear in the Constitution. Once both statements are false, only one option fits.
Know more
Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) was added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. Articles 102(2) and 191(2) link it to the disqualification of MPs and MLAs.
Grounds for disqualification (Para 2):
- voluntarily giving up membership of one's political party
- voting or abstaining against the party's direction without permission, unless the party condones it within 15 days
- an independent member joining a party after election
- a nominated member joining a party more than six months after taking their seat
Exceptions:
- Merger (Para 4): a merger is valid only if at least two-thirds of the legislature party agree to it.
- Presiding officers (Para 5): they may give up party membership on election to the post and rejoin later.
- Split: the 'one-third split' protection (Para 3) was deleted by the 91st Amendment, 2003.
Who decides what:
| Provision | Grounds | Decided by | Advice binding on decider |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 103 (MPs) / 192 (MLAs) | Art. 102(1)/191(1): office of profit, unsound mind, insolvency, citizenship, disqualification under a law of Parliament | President / Governor | Election Commission's opinion |
| Tenth Schedule, Para 6 | Defection | Speaker / Chairman (or a member elected by the House, if the presiding officer is the one accused) | None |
Judicial review: In Kihoto Hollohan (1992), the Supreme Court held that the presiding officer acts as a tribunal and that the decision is open to judicial review. The Court struck down Para 7, which barred the courts, because it was not ratified by the States. Later rulings pushed Speakers to decide quickly. Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020) set a three-month benchmark. Subhash Desai (2023) held that the political party, not the legislature party, appoints the whip.
NCERT Concepts to Revise
- Anti-defection law: Both statements turn on the Tenth Schedule's text: who decides disqualification and which terms it defines.
- Subhash Desai case: This ruling separates a political party from a legislature party, which is central to how the Schedule uses the term.
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh case: This case dealt with presiding officers sitting on disqualification petitions, which bears on who is the deciding authority.