Indian Polity Quiz: Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule)

The correct answer is B, the Tenth Schedule. The Tenth Schedule was added by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, and it lays down the grounds on which a member of Parliament or of a State Legislature is disqualified for defection, the exemption for a merger, the exemption for the presiding officers and the authority who decides the question.

Option A, the Ninth Schedule, was added by the First Amendment, 1951, and holds laws, mostly land reform laws, that are placed beyond challenge on the ground of violating fundamental rights, subject to the basic structure test laid down in the I. R. Coelho case. Option C, the Eleventh Schedule, was added by the Seventy-third Amendment, 1992, and lists twenty-nine subjects for Panchayats. Option D, the Twelfth Schedule, came with the Seventy-fourth Amendment, 1992, and lists eighteen subjects for municipalities. Only the Tenth Schedule deals with defection.

The correct answer is B, the Fifty-second Amendment, 1985. That amendment inserted the Tenth Schedule and amended Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191, which deal with the vacation of seats and the disqualification of members. It came into force on 1 March 1985.

Option A, the Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978, undid much of the Forty-second Amendment: it restored the term of the Lok Sabha to five years, deleted the right to property from the fundamental rights and tightened the conditions for a proclamation of Emergency. Option C, the Sixty-first Amendment, 1989, lowered the voting age from twenty-one years to eighteen years. Option D, the Ninety-first Amendment, 2003, did not add the Schedule; it amended it, deleting the exemption for a split and capping the size of the Council of Ministers, so it is the common distractor in this question.

The correct answer is C, two-thirds. Paragraph 4 says that where the original political party of a member merges with another party, the member is not disqualified if not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to the merger. Both the members who go over and the members who refuse to go and stay with the old party are protected.

Option A, one-third, was the figure in Paragraph 3 for a split, and that paragraph was deleted by the Ninety-first Amendment in 2003, which is why one-third now protects nobody. Option B, one-half, and option D, three-fourths, appear nowhere in the Tenth Schedule; three-fourths is the figure used in Article 368 for ratification by states only in the sense of a special majority of the House, not for mergers. Examiners pair one-third and two-thirds deliberately, so the two figures must be remembered together with their paragraphs.

The correct answer is D, the Ninety-first Amendment, passed in 2003. It omitted Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, which had saved a split supported by one-third of the members of a legislature party. Bulk defections were being presented as splits to claim that protection, so only a merger approved by two-thirds survives today.

Option A, the Sixty-first Amendment, 1989, reduced the voting age to eighteen years. Option B, the Seventy-third Amendment, 1992, gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj and added Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule. Option C, the Eighty-sixth Amendment, 2002, inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education for children of six to fourteen years a fundamental right, and added the fundamental duty in Article 51A(k). The Ninety-first Amendment is also remembered for capping the Council of Ministers at fifteen per cent of the House and for inserting Article 361B.

The correct answer is C, the Chairman or the Speaker of the House concerned. Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule gives that power to the presiding officer, and where the question is about the presiding officer, it is decided by a member of the House elected for the purpose.

Option A, the President, decides disqualification under Articles 102 and 103 for grounds such as holding an office of profit, and there the President must act on the opinion of the Election Commission. Option B, the Election Commission, has no role at all in a Tenth Schedule case, which is a favourite trap in this question. Option D, the Supreme Court, does not decide the question at first instance, but after Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillhu, 1992, struck down Paragraph 7, the courts may review the presiding officer's order on grounds such as mala fides, perversity or violation of natural justice.

The correct answer is D, Paragraph 7. That paragraph barred the jurisdiction of all courts in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member under the Schedule. The Supreme Court held that taking away the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and of the Supreme Court under Article 136 changed the position of those courts, so the amendment needed ratification by the legislatures of half the states under Article 368(2), which had not been obtained. Paragraph 7 therefore fell, while the rest of the Schedule was upheld.

Option A, Paragraph 2, lays down the grounds of defection and remains in force. Option B, Paragraph 4, carries the merger exemption and also stands. Option C, Paragraph 6, which makes the presiding officer the deciding authority, was upheld, with the Court holding that the officer acts as a tribunal whose order is open to judicial review once it is made.

The correct answer is B, fifteen days. Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule disqualifies a member who votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issued by the party, but the proviso saves the member in two situations: where prior permission was obtained, and where the party condones the act within fifteen days from the date of the vote or abstention.

Option A, seven days, option C, thirty days, and option D, three months, are not in the Schedule. Three months is the period the Supreme Court suggested in Keisham Meghachandra Singh versus the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2020, for a Speaker to decide a defection petition, which is a different matter altogether and the reason that figure is offered here as a distractor. The fifteen-day window is what makes a whip violation forgivable, so it is a standard one-line question in prelims papers.

The correct answer is B, six months. Paragraph 2(3) provides that a nominated member who joins a political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which the member takes the seat is disqualified. Joining within those six months is allowed, so a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha has a window of half a year in which to take a party label.

Option A, three months, and option C, one year, are not periods used in the Schedule. Option D is wrong because the Schedule plainly permits the nominated member to join a party inside the six-month window. The rule for an independent member elected to the House is stricter: under Paragraph 2(2) an independent who joins any political party after the election is disqualified at once, with no window at all. Examiners frequently place the two rules side by side to see whether the candidate has mixed them up.

The correct answer is B, Article 361B. It provides that a member of either House of Parliament or of a State Legislature who is disqualified on the ground of defection is also disqualified from holding any remunerative political post, from the date of disqualification until the date on which the term of office would expire or until the member is re-elected, whichever is earlier.

Option A, Article 361A, inserted by the Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978, protects the publication of substantially true reports of the proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures. Option C, Article 371J, added in 2012, provides special status for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region of Karnataka. Option D, Article 350B, created the office of the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities. The Ninety-first Amendment also inserted Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B), which keep a defector out of ministerial office for the same period.

The correct answer is C, fifteen per cent. Article 75(1A) says that the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha, and Article 164(1A) lays down the same ceiling for a state with reference to the Legislative Assembly, with a floor of twelve ministers including the Chief Minister.

Option A, ten per cent, and option D, twenty per cent, are not used in the Constitution for this purpose. Option B, twelve per cent, confuses the percentage with the number twelve, which is the minimum size of a state Council of Ministers under the same clause, and is therefore the most tempting wrong answer. The cap was introduced along with the anti-defection changes because oversized ministries, with offices for the asking, had themselves become a means of encouraging defection.

The correct answer is A, Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191. Articles 101 and 102 deal with the vacation of seats and the disqualifications for membership of Parliament, and Articles 190 and 191 do the same for the State Legislatures. The Fifty-second Amendment added a clause to each of them so that a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule vacates the seat.

Option B wrongly brings in Articles 103 and 192, which lay down who decides questions of disqualification under the earlier grounds, the President and the Governor respectively on the opinion of the Election Commission. Option C brings in Articles 100 and 189, which deal with voting in the Houses and the quorum. Option D names Articles 105, 106, 194 and 195, which deal with the powers, privileges and salaries of members. Only the first group concerns disqualification and vacation of seats.

The correct answer is D. Paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule expressly exempts a person who, on being elected Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha or of a Legislative Assembly, or Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or of a Legislative Council, gives up membership of the party, and the exemption continues if the person rejoins that party after ceasing to hold the office. The rule protects the neutrality of the chair.

Option A is the first ground in Paragraph 2(1)(a), and the Supreme Court held in Ravi S. Naik versus Union of India, 1994, that giving up may be inferred from conduct. Option B is the whip ground in Paragraph 2(1)(b), subject to prior permission or condonation within fifteen days. Option C is the rule in Paragraph 2(2) for an independent member, who loses the seat on joining any party after the election. All three are grounds; only the Speaker's case is an exemption.