Supreme Court rejects petition challenging anti-defection law under Tenth Schedule

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition challenging the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India..The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that the Tenth Schedule has already been upheld by a Constitution Bench in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu And Others, and a three-judge bench cannot relook into it.CJI Chandrachud also remarked that the anti-defection law had been introduced to tackle the evil of lawmakers changing their political party after election."That was also challenged and upheld you see. How could they have dealt with an issue of defection without this? Party A person could switch to party B...without ramifications. There is no bar on private citizens to change party, but the constitutional amendment was to tackle the evil where members from the House of People do not resort to this. Dismissed," the Court said. .The Tenth Schedule, brought in by the 52nd constitutional amendment, provides for disqualification of a Member of Parliament or a State Legislature if they are found to have defected from their original party on whose ticket they were elected as a lawmaker.One of the grounds for disqualification states that a lawmaker can be disqualified,"If he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention."In 1992, a Supreme Court Constitution Bench by a majority decision had upheld its validity. "The provisions are salutory and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections," the Court had said..[Read live thread]