52nd Amendment Act of Indian Constitution, 1985

0 0 RABI KR. PANDIT Tuesday, October 28, 2025 Edit this post

52nd Amendment Act

Politics in India has always been a lively mix of ideologies, alliances, and unexpected twists. From parties forming new governments overnight to leaders switching sides right before a trust vote — Indian democracy has seen it all. But there was a time when these sudden shifts weren’t just dramatic; they were damaging the very fabric of democracy.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, a new trend began to dominate Indian politics — “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics. It meant politicians were frequently changing their party loyalty for money, position, or power. This frequent defection (party-switching) created chaos in legislatures, brought down elected governments, and made the political process look like a game of opportunism rather than ideology.

To stop this political instability and protect the purity of democracy, the Indian Parliament passed the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, also known as the Anti-Defection Law. This amendment added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and became one of the most discussed and impactful political reforms in modern India.

Let’s understand the story behind it, what it changed, how it works, and why it still matters today.

Background — The “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” Era

To understand the 52nd Amendment, we need to go back to the late 1960s. After independence, India had mostly one-party dominance — the Congress Party was in power in most states and at the Centre. But after the 1967 General Elections, Congress began to lose control in several states, and for the first time, coalition governments started forming.

This was also the time when defection — the act of switching political sides — became a national problem. Legislators would contest elections on one party’s ticket and then jump to another party just to get a ministerial post or cash benefits.

The phrase “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” was coined in Haryana in 1967 when an MLA named Gaya Lal changed his party three times in one day! This incident became symbolic of the new era of political instability.

Between 1967 and 1971, over 142 MPs and 1900 MLAs defected across India. Governments were collapsing frequently, and the voters were losing faith in the system. Democracy was being mocked by the very people who were supposed to uphold it.

Many committees and commissions recommended action to curb defections, but nothing effective happened until the 1980s. Finally, under the leadership of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the 52nd Amendment Act was introduced and passed in 1985 to deal with this growing menace.

The Need for the 52nd Amendment

The main reason for introducing the 52nd Amendment was to stop political defections that were destabilizing the country.

When politicians keep switching sides, it leads to three big problems:

Political Instability — Frequent defections were causing governments to fall overnight, leading to early elections and administrative chaos.
Corruption and Opportunism — Many defections were motivated by money, promises of power, or personal gain.
Loss of Public Trust — Voters felt betrayed when the candidate they elected from one party suddenly joined another.

The Parliament realized that unless there was a legal mechanism to stop this, democracy itself would lose credibility. So, the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 was brought to insert the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution — which lays down the rules to disqualify legislators who defect.

The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 — An Overview

The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 was passed by both Houses of Parliament and came into force on 1 March 1985.

This amendment made significant changes to the Constitution:

It added the Tenth Schedule, which lays down provisions regarding disqualification of legislators on the grounds of defection.
It amended Articles 101, 102, 190, and 191 — these deal with disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures.

In simple terms, the amendment said:
“If you are elected as a member of a political party, you cannot betray that party by switching sides for personal gain. If you do, you’ll lose your seat.”

The law applied to both Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and State Legislatures (Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishads).

What Is Defection?

In political language, defection means abandoning the party on whose ticket a person was elected and joining another party or voting against one’s party’s direction.

The Anti-Defection Law was meant to discourage such acts by punishing the defectors with disqualification from their seat.

For example, if a Member of Parliament (MP) from Party A votes in favor of Party B during a no-confidence motion — going against the directions (whip) of his own party — that MP can be disqualified under this law.

Key Provisions of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

The Tenth Schedule is the heart of the 52nd Amendment. It explains when and how a member of the legislature can be disqualified for defection.

Here’s how it works in simple words:

1. Disqualification on Grounds of Defection

A legislator can be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule in the following cases:

a) If they voluntarily give up their membership of a political party.

It means even if the person doesn’t formally resign but acts against the party — like supporting another party — it can be treated as voluntarily giving up membership.

b) If they vote or abstain from voting in the legislature against the direction (whip) of their party.

If a party issues a whip for a particular vote and a member disobeys it without prior permission, that member can be disqualified.

c) If an independent member joins a political party after the election.

Independent candidates who win elections are not allowed to join any party later. Doing so leads to disqualification.

d) If a nominated member joins a political party after six months of taking their seat.

Nominated members are given six months to decide if they want to join any political party. After that, switching is not allowed.

2. Exceptions to Disqualification

When the law was first passed in 1985, there were two exceptions where defection would not lead to disqualification.

a) In Case of a Split

If at least one-third of the members of a legislative party decided to leave the party together, it was considered a “split,” not defection. In such cases, no one would be disqualified.

b) In Case of a Merger

If two political parties merged, or if two-thirds of the members of one party agreed to merge with another, they wouldn’t be disqualified.

However, this split clause (one-third rule) was later removed by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, because it was being widely misused.

3. Decision on Disqualification — Who Decides?

The authority to decide whether a legislator should be disqualified or not lies with the Presiding Officer of the legislature:

Speaker in the case of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies.
Chairman in the case of the Rajya Sabha or State Legislative Councils.

The Presiding Officer’s decision is considered final, although it can be challenged in court after the Supreme Court’s judgment in 1992.

4. Role of the Whip

The “whip” system is very central to the Anti-Defection Law. Every political party issues a whip to its members on important votes — like confidence motions, budget approvals, or major bills.

If any member disobeys the whip — meaning they vote against their party’s direction — they can be disqualified. This system ensures party discipline but has also been criticized for limiting the independence of legislators.

5. Judicial Review

Originally, the law said that the Presiding Officer’s decision on disqualification was final and not open to judicial review. However, in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker’s decision can be reviewed by the courts to prevent misuse of power.

This judgment became a landmark in maintaining fairness and preventing political bias.

Reasons Behind the Amendment

The 52nd Amendment wasn’t just about punishing defectors — it was about protecting democracy itself. The main reasons behind it were:

To stop political instability caused by frequent switching of sides.
To strengthen party discipline and ensure that elected representatives remain loyal to their voters and party manifesto.
To promote ethical politics by discouraging corruption and horse-trading.
To restore public faith in the democratic process.

It was meant to create an environment where elected leaders stayed true to the people who voted for them, rather than chasing personal gain.

Positive Outcomes of the 52nd Amendment

After the 52nd Amendment came into effect, it had several positive impacts on Indian politics.

First, it reduced the frequency of defections and brought stability to governments. Leaders could no longer casually switch sides without losing their seats.

Second, it strengthened party systems by making members more accountable to their political organizations.

Third, it gave a sense of seriousness to political promises and manifestos, as legislators now had to stand by the ideologies they were elected on.

Lastly, it brought more discipline and order in legislative functioning. Votes and decisions became more predictable and aligned with party lines.

Criticism and Limitations of the Anti-Defection Law

While the law had good intentions, it also attracted a lot of criticism over time. Many experts feel that it has created too much control by political parties and too little independence for individual legislators.

Some of the major criticisms are:

1. Kills Freedom of Speech

Legislators are now forced to follow their party’s orders even if they personally disagree. They can’t vote according to their conscience or the will of their constituents, especially when a whip is issued.

2. Encourages Centralization of Power

Since members can be disqualified for disobedience, real decision-making power often lies in the hands of party leaders, not the legislators themselves.

3. Misuse by the Speaker

The Speaker, being a member of a political party, can act in a biased way while deciding disqualification petitions. This has led to several controversies in states like Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.

4. Delay in Decision-Making

Many Speakers delay the decision on disqualification to favor their political side, keeping the status of defectors uncertain for months.

5. Doesn’t Stop All Defections

Despite the law, mass defections still happen under the name of “mergers” or resignations. Political creativity has found ways around the law.

Important Court Judgments

Over the years, the judiciary has played a huge role in clarifying and refining the Anti-Defection Law.

1. Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992)

This is the most important case related to the 52nd Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law but ruled that the Speaker’s decision can be challenged in court after being made.

2. Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya (2007)

In this case, the Supreme Court said that the Speaker cannot sit indefinitely on disqualification cases. Decisions must be made within a reasonable time.

3. Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016)

The Supreme Court held that a Speaker facing a notice for removal cannot decide on disqualification petitions, as that would create a conflict of interest.

The 91st Amendment Act, 2003 — Strengthening the Law

Over time, it became clear that the 52nd Amendment had loopholes. Many politicians used the “split clause” (one-third rule) to escape disqualification by splitting their party into smaller groups.

To fix this, the 91st Amendment Act, 2003 was passed. It made two major changes:

The “split” clause was removed — now, only a merger supported by two-thirds of the members is valid.
It added a restriction that no minister should be appointed if it causes the total number of ministers to exceed 15% of the legislature’s strength — to prevent mass defections for ministerial posts.

This amendment made the Anti-Defection Law stricter and more effective.

Real-Life Examples of the Law in Action

The Anti-Defection Law has been invoked many times since 1985. In states like Goa, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh, it has played a major role during political crises.

For instance, in Karnataka (2019), several MLAs resigned from the ruling coalition, leading to a change in government. The Speaker disqualified them under the Anti-Defection Law, and the Supreme Court later upheld the decision.

These cases show that while the law can’t completely prevent defections, it does make them much more difficult and risky.

Importance of the 52nd Amendment

The 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 was a turning point in India’s political history. It brought stability and seriousness to Indian politics at a time when opportunism was rampant.

It restored faith in the democratic process by ensuring that elected representatives couldn’t betray their parties and voters for short-term gain. It also strengthened political parties as institutions, helping India evolve from chaotic coalition politics to more disciplined governance.

Critiques by Experts

Many political thinkers, however, believe the law needs a relook. They argue that a balance must be found between party discipline and legislative freedom.

For example, a legislator should be free to vote differently on non-confidence matters or moral issues without facing disqualification. Some suggest limiting the whip only to critical votes, so that democracy remains dynamic and not robotic.

Even the Supreme Court has hinted that the Speaker’s power in deciding defections should perhaps be handled by an independent tribunal to avoid bias.

Conclusion

The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1985, which introduced the Anti-Defection Law, was one of the most important reforms in Indian political history. It came at a time when democracy was being tested by political opportunism and frequent defections.

By adding the Tenth Schedule, India sent a clear message — loyalty, integrity, and stability matter more than personal ambition. While the law isn’t perfect and has its critics, it remains a cornerstone of India’s parliamentary democracy.

Over time, the Anti-Defection Law has evolved, been interpreted by courts, and fine-tuned by later amendments like the 91st Amendment, but its basic goal stays the same — to make sure that the mandate of the people cannot be stolen by political games.

In a democracy as vast and complex as India’s, the 52nd Amendment stands as a reminder that political power comes with responsibility — and betrayal of that trust will not go unpunished.