POLITICAL DEFECTION AND PARTY LEADERSHIP DISPUTES: ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE TO DISSIDENT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
AUTHOR – KARTHIKEYAN J* & GAYATHRI J**
* LAW GRADUATE FROM AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA
** ADVOCATE FROM MADRAS HIGH COURT
BEST CITATION – KARTHIKEYAN J & GAYATHRI J, POLITICAL DEFECTION AND PARTY LEADERSHIP DISPUTES: ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TENTH SCHEDULE TO DISSIDENT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (9) OF 2026, PG. 884-894, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
Political defections have consistently posed a challenge to the stability and integrity of India’s parliamentary democracy. In response to the increasing frequency of legislators changing party allegiance for political gain, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, introducing the Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law. While the legislation aimed to curb unprincipled defections, contemporary political developments have revealed significant constitutional dilemmas concerning intra-party disputes and rival claims to party leadership. These conflicts raise a fundamental legal question: whether Members of Parliament (MPs) who separate themselves from the official leadership of a political party can be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule for political defection. This article critically examines the constitutional framework, judicial interpretation, and contemporary challenges relating to dissident legislators. Through an analysis of landmark Supreme Court decisions and recent political controversies, the article evaluates the extent to which opposition to party leadership amounts to voluntary relinquishment of party membership. The study argues that while the Tenth Schedule remains essential for preserving governmental stability, its present framework requires substantial reform to reconcile party discipline with democratic dissent.
Keywords: Anti-Defection Law, Tenth Schedule, Political Defection, Party Leadership, Dissident MPs, Parliamentary Democracy, Judicial Review.