← 10 October 2026's Current Affairs · Polity GA Prelims ★★★★★ Mains ★★★☆☆
Supreme Court backs Tamil Nadu Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against AIADMK MLAs
खबर में क्यों?
Can a Speaker's anti-defection verdict be challenged in court? The Kihoto Hollohan answer Polity Prelims tests
The Court's ruling keeps the Speaker's role under the anti-defection law in focus.
Why it matters: asked in UPSC 2022; factual, Prelims-type
What you need to know
2 मिनट
The Supreme Court has upheld the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against a group of AIADMK MLAs.
Under the Tenth Schedule, the presiding officer of the House decides disqualification on grounds of defection, and in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) the Court held that such decisions are open to limited judicial review.
स्रोत: Topper IAS editorial (PIB / The Hindu / Indian Express)
मुख्य तथ्य
Remember these
- The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) was added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
- Under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, the presiding officer of the House decides disqualification questions.
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): a Constitution Bench upheld the Tenth Schedule's validity.
- The Court held the Speaker's decision is subject to limited judicial review, as the Speaker acts as a tribunal.
- Disqualification grounds include voluntarily giving up party membership and defying the party whip.
प्रीलिम्स · मेन्स
How the exam will ask it
प्रीलिम्स
- The Tenth Schedule was inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
- Under the Tenth Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker of the House decides questions of disqualification on grounds of defection.
- In Kihoto Hollohan (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Speaker's decision is not immune from judicial review.
- A merger exception applies when at least two-thirds of a legislature party agree to merge with another party.
मेन्स
GS2 Polity: the anti-defection law aims to ensure stability of governments, but vesting disqualification powers in a Speaker who belongs to a party raises questions of impartiality. The Tenth Schedule and Kihoto Hollohan (1992) allow only limited judicial review, and delays in Speakers' decisions weaken the law's deterrent effect. Way forward: refer disqualification petitions to an independent authority such as the Election Commission or a tribunal, and fix a time-bound disposal limit, as suggested by various commissions.
PYQ connection
A question UPSC has already asked on this
With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:
- The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.
- The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
उत्तर देखें
उत्तर: B
Why this matters: today's issue is directly connected to a concept UPSC has already tested. Read the story with this question in mind.
Practise this PYQ →Quick recall
Answer before you reveal
Which Supreme Court judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) while holding that a Speaker's disqualification decision is open to judicial review?
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
उत्तर देखें
उत्तर: B — Correct: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — In 1992 a Constitution Bench upheld the Tenth Schedule and held the Speaker's decision subject to judicial review. • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — wrong: Kesavananda Bharati laid down the basic structure doctrine and did not deal with the anti-defection law. • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — wrong: S.R. Bommai (1994) concerned the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356, not defection. • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — wrong: Minerva Mills (1980) struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment and reaffirmed basic structure; it was not about defection.
Convert this topic into marks
Today's 10-MCQ test · instant analysis · Powered by AdaptIQ