Parliament & State Legislature

GS Paper: GS Paper II | Subject: Polity | Last updated: 2026-06-18

Prelims

(Key facts, data, schemes, laws, organizations — MCQ-ready points)

Anti-Defection — The "Two-Thirds Merger" Route (The Hindu, 15-06-2026)

20 rebel Trinamool Congress MPs met the Lok Sabha Speaker to merge with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI) — a move designed to escape disqualification under the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule)
The law exempts a merger when ≥ two-thirds of a party's legislators agree to merge with another party (neither the joiners nor those staying are disqualified); the rebels plan to later seek recognition as the TMC — for the courts to decide
Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment (1985); the 91st Amendment (2003) deleted the earlier "split" (one-third) exemption, leaving only the two-thirds merger route; the Speaker decides, subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992)
(16-06-2026 update) The NCPI claimed to be Bengal's largest LS force (20 MPs); experts (P.D.T. Achary) note a merger needs the original party to merge (MPs alone can't), so the move may not be foolproof against disqualification — but the rebels can still vote pending the Speaker's ruling, which matters as the Centre eyes the 131st Constitutional Amendment / Delimitation Bill (needs a two-thirds majority) in the Monsoon Session; the WB Assembly rebel faction (Ritabrata Banerjee) said it had "no idea" about any merger → splits the claim
(17-06-2026 — "Letter & Spirit" explainer, precedents) The Tenth Schedule originally had two exemptions: para 3 (one-third of a legislature party splitting) and para 4 (a merger of the political party approved by two-thirds of its legislature party); para 3 was omitted in 2003. Two-thirds-merger precedents: Sept 2019 (Rajasthan) — all 6 BSP MLAs merged with Congress; Sept 2022 (Goa) — 8 of 11 Congress MLAs merged with BJP (Bombay HC upheld it; appeal pending in SC); April 2026 — 7 of 10 AAP Rajya Sabha MPs merged with BJP; the Shiv Sena (June 2022) and NCP (July 2023) cases were "practical defections" claiming to be the original party. Legal nuance: a plain reading allows only the original political party to merge (with two-thirds approval) — it does not authorise two-thirds of a legislature party to merge itself with another party; whether a merger can happen with a party without existing members in the House is also unsettled
Reform pointers: the SC in the K.M. Singh case (2020) recommended a constitutional amendment to vest disqualification powers in an independent tribunal headed by judges; the Law Commission (1999) recommended deleting para 4 so that any defection/merger triggers disqualification and a fresh mandate

Mains

(Analysis, dimensions, significance, critique, policy angles — for 10/15 mark answers)

Anti-Defection Law — The Merger Loophole (The Hindu, 15-06-2026)

The episode shows how the two-thirds merger provision can enable mass, "legalised" defection, undermining the law's purpose of curbing horse-trading and unstable governments; Speaker partisanship and adjudication delays (despite Kihoto Hollohan allowing judicial review) further weaken enforcement
Reform ideas: shift disqualification decisions to an independent tribunal / the ECI rather than the Speaker, impose time-bound adjudication, and reconsider whether "mergers" deserve blanket protection
UPSC angle: Tenth Schedule, 52nd/91st Amendments, defection vs merger, Speaker's role & Kihoto Hollohan, intra-party democracy, reforms (independent adjudicator)