In March 2025, the Supreme Court of India reminded everyone that it is “not powerless” when a House Speaker sits on anti-defection law petitions, letting defectors roam free for months. This remark came during hearings on pleas against delays in the Telangana Assembly, where MLAs accused of switching loyalties were allowed to continue in office simply because the Speaker had not decided their disqualification cases
This fresh intervention by the Court reopens an important conversation: where does the Anti-Defection Law stand today? And more importantly — is it still serving the purpose it was created for?
The Story Behind the Law
In the 1960s and 1970s, Indian politics witnessed a troubling trend where elected representatives frequently switched parties for personal or political gain. This practice, known as defection, undermined the stability of governments and eroded public trust in the democratic process. A notable incident occurred in 1967 when Gaya Lal, an MLA from Haryana, changed his party affiliation three times in a single day. This led to the popular phrase “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram”, symbolizing the rampant party-hopping culture of the time.
To address this issue, the Indian Parliament enacted the 52nd Amendment Act in 1985, which introduced the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Anti-Defection Law. The primary objective of this law was to curb political defections by disqualifying legislators who defected from their parties.
Under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, a legislator can be disqualified if they:
- Voluntarily give up their membership of a political party.
- Vote or abstain from voting in the legislature contrary to the directives of their political party without prior permission.
The anti-defection law also applies to independent members who join a political party after the election and nominated members who join a party after six months of their nomination.
However, the law provides exceptions. If a party merges with another and at least two-thirds of its legislators agree to the merger, they are not disqualified.
The Speaker of the House is entrusted with the authority to decide on disqualification matters. While the law aimed to bring stability, over time, concerns have arisen regarding delays and impartiality in the Speaker’s decisions, leading to calls for reforms to strengthen the law’s effectiveness.
The Supreme Court, in earlier cases like Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992), had ruled that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review. Yet the wheels of justice turn slowly, and by the time courts intervene, the political damage is often already done.
The Human Cost of Delay
Delays in addressing defection cases under the Anti-Defection Law have profound consequences on India’s democratic fabric. When elected representatives switch parties and continue in office without timely disqualification, it undermines the democratic mandate of the voters. Citizens who voted for a candidate based on specific party ideologies feel betrayed when their representative changes allegiance without facing immediate consequences.
Such delays erode public trust in democratic institutions. When the mechanisms meant to uphold accountability falter, it fosters a sense of disillusionment among the electorate. This disillusionment can lead to decreased voter participation and a general apathy towards the political process.
Moreover, the governance process suffers. Defectors who align with ruling parties can tilt policy decisions, often sidelining the interests of their original constituents. This shift can result in policies that do not reflect the will of the people, leading to ineffective governance and potential unrest.
The opposition’s role is also compromised. When members defect and bolster the ruling party’s numbers, it weakens the opposition’s ability to hold the government accountable. A robust opposition is vital for a healthy democracy, ensuring checks and balances are maintained.
Furthermore, the moral fabric of politics is tarnished. Delays in disqualification proceedings can be perceived as tacit approval of opportunistic behavior, promoting a culture where personal gain supersedes public service. This perception can deter genuine individuals from entering politics, fearing association with unethical practices.
In essence, timely action on defection cases is crucial. It not only preserves the sanctity of the electoral process but also ensures that governance remains transparent, accountable, and aligned with the people’s aspirations.
Is It Time for a Reform?
The Anti-Defection Law, introduced in 1985, aimed to curb political defections and maintain the stability of elected governments. However, over the years, several challenges have emerged, prompting discussions on the need for reforms.
One significant issue is the delay in disqualification decisions. Currently, the Speaker of the House holds the authority to decide on disqualification petitions. However, there is no specific timeframe mandated for these decisions, leading to prolonged delays that can undermine the democratic process. In some cases, such delays have allowed defecting members to continue in office, affecting the balance of power within the legislature.
To address this, there have been calls for establishing a fixed timeline for the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions. For instance, the Supreme Court has suggested that such decisions should ideally be made within three months to prevent strategic delays that can be exploited for political gains.
Another concern is the impartiality of the Speaker. Given that the Speaker is often affiliated with a political party, questions arise about their ability to make unbiased decisions in disqualification cases. To mitigate this, experts have proposed transferring the authority to decide on such matters to an independent tribunal or the Election Commission. This shift could ensure more objective and timely resolutions.
Additionally, the scope of the whip—a directive issued by political parties to their members—has been a topic of debate. Currently, any deviation from the party’s directive can lead to disqualification. However, this strict enforcement can stifle legitimate dissent and debate within the legislature. Some experts advocate for limiting the whip’s applicability to crucial matters like confidence motions and budgetary votes, allowing legislators more freedom to express their views on other issues.
The Way Forward: Protecting People’s Mandate
Laws alone don’t protect democracy — vigilance, fairness, and timely action do. The Anti-Defection Law, though well-intentioned, has fallen short of its promises in many instances. The Supreme Court’s latest intervention reminds us that silence or delay from authorities isn’t just an administrative failure — it is a betrayal of the people’s mandate.
In a country as large and complex as India, democracy must be constantly nurtured, updated, and defended. Strengthening the Anti-Defection Law is not about giving more power to courts or Speakers — it’s about returning power to where it belongs: with the people.
📢 Share this article with your friends and family to keep them informed!
🔍 Explore More: https://thinkingthorough.com
📩 Let’s Connect: Have thoughts or suggestions? Drop us a message on our social media handles. We will be waiting to hear from you
REFRENCES
Admin. (2024, February 16). 10th Schedule – Anti-Defection & Role Of Speaker (UPSC Indian Polity Notes). BYJUS. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/anti-defection-role-of-speaker-10th-schedule-upsc-notes/
Choudhary, A. A. (2025, April 3). Not powerless against mockery of anti-defection law, SC tells Telangana. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/not-powerless-against-mockery-of-anti-defection-law-sc-tells-telangana/articleshow/119920832.cms
Delay in decisions of Anti-Defection cases. (n.d.). Drishti IAS. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/delay-in-decisions-of-anti-defection-cases
Rajagopal, K. (2025, April 2). SC, as guardian of Constitution, is not powerless if a Speaker decides to sit on anti-defection pleas: Justice B.R. Gavai. The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-as-guardian-of-constitution-is-not-powerless-if-a-speaker-decides-to-sit-on-anti-defection-pleas-justice-br-gavai/article69403942.ece
The Anti-Defection Law explained. (n.d.). PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/the-anti-defection-law-explained?page=48&per-page=1