What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse the 'split' provision (removed in 2003) with the 'merger' exception (still valid). They may also ask about the threshold: one-third for split (old law) vs. two-thirds for merger (current law). Another trap: the Supreme Court's ruling that merger must involve the parent party, not just the legislature party.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Two-thirds (2/3) threshold for merger exception under Tenth Schedule 2. Target this Nodal Body: Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides on disqualification 3. Target this Legal Point: Tenth Schedule, 52nd Amendment Act, 1985; 91st Amendment Act, 2003

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 6 of 25

Tenth Schedule Anti-Defection Law: Merger Loophole Exploited as 6 Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs Defect

Q: Which constitutional schedule contains the anti-defection law?

Tenth Schedule, The Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, to deal with the problem of political defections. It lays down the grounds for disqualification of members of Parliament and state legislatures on grounds of defection.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the anti-defection law: 1. The 2003 amendment to the Tenth Schedule removed the 'split' provision and retained only the 'merger' exception. 2. Under the merger exception, disqualification does not apply if one-third of a party's legislators agree to merge with another party. 3. The Supreme Court has held that a merger must involve the parent party, not just the legislature party. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The 2003 amendment removed the 'split' provision (which allowed one-third to defect) and retained only the 'merger' exception. Statement 2 is incorrect: The merger exception requires two-thirds (not one-third) of a party's legislators to agree. Statement 3 is correct: The Supreme Court has clarified that a merger must involve the original political party, not just its legislature wing.

Q: What is the minimum proportion of a party's legislators required to claim the 'merger' exception under the Tenth Schedule?

Two-thirds, Under the Tenth Schedule, the merger exception applies when two-thirds of a party's legislators agree to merge with another party. This threshold was retained after the 2003 amendment removed the earlier 'split' provision which required only one-third.

Q: What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the recent wave of defections using the 'merger' exception?

It bypasses the high threshold required for constitutional amendments, The article highlights that the NDA does not have a two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments. By engineering defections through the merger loophole, the ruling coalition can increase its strength without a popular mandate, bypassing the intent of requiring wide political consensus for constitutional changes.

PolityCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

19 Jun 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:Two-thirds threshold2003 amendmentSix Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs20 TMC Lok Sabha MPs

Bodies:Supreme CourtParliament

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs are seeking to join the Eknath Shinde faction, claiming a 'merger' under the Tenth Schedule as they constitute two-thirds of the party's Lok Sabha strength.

2.The 2003 amendment to the anti-defection law removed the 'split' provision but retained the 'merger' exception, which is now being used to engineer defections without disqualification.

3.The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a merger must involve the parent party, not just the legislature party, but pending judgments allow presiding officers to wave through such claims.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Tenth Schedule's 'merger' exception is being systematically exploited to bypass the anti-defection law. Six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs are the latest to use the two-thirds merger loophole, following a wave of defections from TMC and AAP, raising serious questions about the integrity of representative democracy and the need for judicial clarity.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitutional ScheduleTenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

Year of Amendment2003

Merger ThresholdTwo-thirds of party's legislators

Key PrecedentSC: Merger must involve parent party

1-Minute Revision

›Constitutional Schedule: Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)
›Year of Amendment: 2003
›Target this Data: Two-thirds (2/3) threshold for merger exception under Tenth Schedule
›Target this Nodal Body: Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides on disqualification
›Target this Legal Point: Tenth Schedule, 52nd Amendment Act, 1985; 91st Amendment Act, 2003

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Tenth Schedule Loophole

The 'merger' exception under the anti-defection law is being misused by groups of legislators to defect without facing disqualification.

📢

Wave of Defections

Recent defections include six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs, 20 TMC Lok Sabha MPs, and AAP Rajya Sabha MPs joining the ruling NDA.

🔄

Pending Judicial Clarity

The Supreme Court has held that a merger must involve the parent party, but pending judgments allow presiding officers to accept engineered splits as mergers.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution in 1985 to curb the menace of defections. Originally, it allowed a 'split' if one-third of a party's legislators defected. The 2003 amendment removed this 'split' provision to strengthen the law, retaining only the 'merger' exception where two-thirds of legislators can merge with another party without penalty.

Core Analysis & Implications

The current wave of defections exploits the 'merger' exception. Groups of legislators claim to be merging with another party, even when the parent party opposes the move. The Supreme Court has clarified that a merger must involve the original political party, not just its legislature wing. However, pending judgments and inaction by presiding officers allow these engineered splits to pass as mergers, effectively rendering the Tenth Schedule redundant.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The surge in crossovers, which strengthens the ruling NDA in Parliament, raises constitutional concerns. The NDA lacks a two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments, but bypassing this threshold through defections undermines the spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's pending judgments on these constitutional questions are crucial. A clear ruling is needed to close the merger loophole and restore the intent of the anti-defection law.

Key Facts at a Glance

Constitutional ScheduleTenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

Year of Amendment2003

Merger ThresholdTwo-thirds of party's legislators

Key PrecedentSC: Merger must involve parent party

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional schedule contains the anti-defection law?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the anti-defection law:

1. The 2003 amendment to the Tenth Schedule removed the 'split' provision and retained only the 'merger' exception.

2. Under the merger exception, disqualification does not apply if one-third of a party's legislators agree to merge with another party.

3. The Supreme Court has held that a merger must involve the parent party, not just the legislature party.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, Banking, SSC

What is the minimum proportion of a party's legislators required to claim the 'merger' exception under the Tenth Schedule?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

What is the primary constitutional concern raised by the recent wave of defections using the 'merger' exception?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousEU Parliament Passes Return Regulation: 418-218 Vote Allows Offshore Deportation to Non-EU Countries Next Delhi HC Upholds Govt Power to Block Entire Apps Under Section 69A IT Act

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

SC Split Verdict on CEC/EC Appointment Act, 2023; Matter Referred to CJI for Constitution Bench

A two-judge Supreme Court bench has split on whether to refer the challenge to the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench. With Justice Dipankar Datta disagreeing with Justice S C Sharma, the case now goes to the CJI for constituting a larger bench. For aspirants, this is a direct link to Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal verdict, and the independence of the Election Commission.

Polity Current Affairs

AP High Court Declares Three-Capitals Petitions Infructuous; Amaravati Now Sole Capital Under AP Reorganisation (Amendment) Act 2026

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has deemed all petitions against the proposed three-capitals model as infructuous after Parliament amended the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, making Amaravati the sole capital by law. This ends a long-standing political and legal battle, with implications for state governance and federal structure.

Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

Polity Current Affairs

Telangana HC Disqualifies MLA Under Tenth Schedule for Contesting Lok Sabha on Congress Ticket

Telangana High Court set aside the Assembly Speaker's order rejecting disqualification petitions and declared BRS-turned-Congress MLA Danam Nagender disqualified from April 23, 2024. The case reinforces the Tenth Schedule's anti-defection law: contesting a Lok Sabha election on another party ticket without resigning from the original party amounts to voluntarily giving up membership. This verdict is crucial for UPSC Polity as it clarifies the Speaker's role and limits of judicial review.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Increases Supreme Court Judges Strength from 34 to 38 via Amendment Bill, 2026

Parliament has increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges (including CJI) for the first time since 2019. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by Lok Sabha on August 3, 2026, replacing an ordinance. The move aims to address the growing backlog of cases in the apex court.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Refers 2023 CEC Appointment Law to CJI for Constitution Bench; Excludes CJI from Selection Panel

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of CEC and ECs to the CJI for consideration of a Constitution Bench. The law replaced the CJI with a Cabinet minister in the selection panel, raising concerns about executive influence. A split verdict between two judges led to the referral.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Passes Mines and Minerals Amendment Act 2026 Overriding SC Ruling, Extinguishes Rs 2 Lakh Cr Dues

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 restricts states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights and extinguishes ~Rs 2 lakh crore in unpaid dues. Mineral-rich states like Odisha and Jharkhand oppose it as a blow to federal fiscal autonomy, potentially losing thousands of crores annually. This reverses the financial impact of a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling that had empowered states to tax mineral-bearing lands.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Tenth Schedule Anti-Defection Law: Merger Loophole Exploited as 6 Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs Defect

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Tenth Schedule Loophole

Wave of Defections

Pending Judicial Clarity

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance