Anti-Defection Law and the Tenth Schedule: AAP Seeks Disqualification of Rajya Sabha MPs

In this context, the role of the Presiding Officer—the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha—is paramount. Under the law, the Chairman has the power to decide on petitions for disqualification. While the 1992 Supreme Court judgment in the Kihoto Hollohan case affirmed that the Presiding Officer’s decision is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or perversity, the initial authority remains with the Chair. This case highlights ongoing debates regarding the impartiality of the Presiding Officer and the delays often associated with such decisions. Furthermore, the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, strengthened the law by removing the provision that protected a 'split' in a party (one-third of members), now requiring at least two-thirds of the members to merge with another party to avoid disqualification. As these seven MPs represent a significant portion of AAP's Rajya Sabha strength, the outcome will have implications for the party's representation and the broader interpretation of legislative ethics. UPSC Relevance: This development is highly relevant for GS Paper II, specifically under the sections dealing with the functioning of Parliament and constitutional amendments. It provides a contemporary case study for questions regarding the effectiveness of the Tenth Schedule, the impartiality of the Presiding Officer, and the balance between party discipline and the individual legislator's freedom of speech.