Party defections is the new normal for Indian Politics? What does the law says?

The anti‑defection law profoundly shapes party discipline in India, and its real impact becomes clearest when examined through recent, high‑profile political events such as the Raghav Chadha–AAP episode (2026) and the Maharashtra crises involving Shiv Sena (2022) and NCP (2023).

In practice, the law forces legislators to prioritise party loyalty over individual opinion, because any act seen as “voluntarily giving up party membership” or defying the party whip can lead to immediate loss of the seat under the Tenth Schedule. A very recent illustration is the case of Raghav Chadha and six other Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MPs, who quit AAP in April 2026 and announced a merger with the BJP. AAP immediately sought their disqualification, arguing that their exit amounted to defection. What is critical here is how the MPs structured their exit: rather than leaving individually, they invoked the two‑thirds merger exception, which legally protects them from disqualification. This episode shows how rigid party discipline under the anti‑defection law discourages individual dissent and pushes legislators to act collectively and tactically, not ideologically, when breaking away from a party.

The Shiv Sena split in Maharashtra in 2022 is another powerful example of the law’s disciplining effect—and its limitations. When Eknath Shinde and over 40 Shiv Sena MLAs rebelled against Uddhav Thackeray, the Thackeray faction moved to disqualify them under the anti‑defection law for defying party directions and refusing to attend party meetings. The fear of disqualification initially framed the rebellion, but the group relied on numerical strength to claim they represented the “real” party rather than defectors. The Supreme Court later held that it could not reinstate Thackeray as Chief Minister but raised serious concerns over the Speaker’s delayed decisions. The case shows that while the anti‑defection law enforces discipline among individual rebels, it is far less effective against large‑scale collective dissent, where breaking the party becomes safer than challenging leadership from within.

A similar pattern appeared in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) split in July 2023, when Ajit Pawar and a majority of NCP MLAs joined the BJP‑Shiv Sena government. Disqualification petitions were filed by both factions, but the Maharashtra Speaker ruled in February 2024 that the Ajit Pawar faction was the real NCP, explicitly stating that the anti‑defection law cannot be used to stifle internal dissent when backed by overwhelming legislative majority. This decision reinforced a critical reality: the law enhances party discipline mainly by empowering leadership over isolated dissenters, but it fails to restrain mass defections, where discipline collapses entirely into factional realignments.

Taken together, these examples show that the anti‑defection law creates a culture of enforced obedience within parties, discouraging MPs and MLAs from speaking or voting against leadership even on policy disagreements. However, when dissent becomes collective and numerically dominant—as in Shiv Sena and NCP—the same law becomes politically negotiable rather than morally binding, transforming party discipline from a matter of principle into a calculation of strength.

What is Anti Defection Law in India?

The anti-defection law in India is a constitutional mechanism designed to curb political defections by elected representatives, thereby promoting stability and discipline in parliamentary democracy. It is contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which was inserted through the Constitution (Fifty‑Second Amendment) Act, 1985, passed during the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and it came into force on 15 February 1985. The law applies to both Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and provides for disqualification if a member voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party on whose ticket they were elected, or if they vote or abstain from voting against the directions (whip) of their party without prior permission and without subsequent condonation within a stipulated time. Independent members who join a political party after the election, and nominated members who join a party after six months of taking their seat, are also liable to disqualification.

The primary reason for implementing the anti-defection law was the widespread political instability caused by frequent party-switching in the 1960s and 1970s, a phenomenon famously described as “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics. The phrase originated in 1967 in Haryana, when MLA Gaya Lal changed his political allegiance three times within a short period, symbolising unprincipled defections driven by personal gain rather than ideology. During this period, it is estimated that nearly half of the legislators elected between 1967 and 1971 defected, leading to the collapse of multiple state governments and weakening public faith in democratic institutions. Parliament therefore felt the need for a constitutional remedy to curb “horse‑trading,” protect the mandate of the voters, and ensure the smooth functioning of elected governments.

Over the years, the anti-defection law has been used and interpreted in several significant instances. A landmark judicial intervention came in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule but ruled that the decisions of the Speaker or Chairman on disqualification are subject to judicial review on limited grounds such as mala fides or violation of constitutional principles. This judgment balanced legislative autonomy with constitutional oversight. The law has also been applied in various political crises, such as the Karnataka Assembly crisis (2019), the Maharashtra political crisis (2022), and disputes in Manipur and Goa, where defecting MLAs faced or contested disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, often resulting in Supreme Court scrutiny over delays or procedural fairness by Speakers. These instances show that while the anti-defection law has helped reduce individual, opportunistic defections, it continues to be debated for issues such as the discretionary power of Speakers and the use of mass resignations or mergers to bypass its intent.

stat tuned for more.

Get membership to feature your article. Check here.