The Supreme Court on Monday (27 July) issued notice to the Union Government on a petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The plea questions the legal interpretation that allows legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by claiming protection through political party mergers.
A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter and observed that while there are "enormous issues" with the functioning of the Tenth Schedule, the law itself was enacted by Parliament.
Background of the Case
Appearing as the petitioner, Kapil Sibal argued that the present interpretation of the merger provision has significant constitutional consequences. According to the plea, the existing legal position enables groups of legislators to escape disqualification under the anti-defection law by taking the route of a political party merger.
Sibal submitted that this could alter the electoral mandate by changing legislative majorities after elections. He also informed the Court that similar issues are already pending before the Supreme Court, including matters arising from Goa and recent disputes relating to political mergers.
Court's Observations
The Bench initially questioned why the petition had been filed directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. In response, Sibal said the issue has wide implications for India's democratic system and deserves the Court's consideration.
During the hearing, the Bench remarked,
"The Tenth Schedule is intended to regulate the mechanism between the legislators. We have been seeing its working. There are enormous issues with the Tenth Schedule. But who made it? It's the making of the MPs."
The judges also observed that such concerns generally arise within the legislative framework and are ordinarily matters to be addressed by lawmakers.
Court's Decision
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on the petition and directed that the matter be considered along with connected cases already pending before the Court.
The Bench did not express any opinion on the merits of the challenge at this stage.
 chief. Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena leader-300x169.webp)
