Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Reply on Anti-Defection Law 'Merger' Exception Plea
The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on a petition challenging the interpretation of the "merger" exception under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law). Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the petitioner, argued that the current interpretation allows a legislature party to effect a "deemed merger" without formal party approval, potentially turning an electoral majority into a minority. He contended that this has "huge repercussions" for the polity and can alter electoral verdicts. While the Bench acknowledged the concerns, it initially expressed disinclination to intervene, suggesting it was a matter for Parliament or political parties, but ultimately issued notice on the plea.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on a plea challenging the interpretation of the anti-defection law's "merger" exception.
- Petitioner Kapil Sibal argued that the current interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule allows for "deemed mergers" without formal party approval.
- Sibal contended that this interpretation has significant repercussions for the polity, potentially altering electoral verdicts and turning majorities into minorities.
- The Bench acknowledged the serious issues but initially suggested it was a matter for Parliament or political parties to address.
Exam Facts
- The petition challenges Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
- Senior advocate Kapil Sibal filed the petition as petitioner-in-person.
- The Bench comprised Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.