What happened

The Supreme Court asked the Union government to file its response to a petition by senior advocate Kapil Sibal. The petition challenges how the anti-defection law’s “merger” exception is interpreted under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, particularly Paragraph 4.

Kapil Sibal’s argument targets a rule-like interpretation of “merger” based on internal claims within a political party. Sibal questioned treating a political party as “merged” with another solely because two-thirds of members of a legislature party claim such a merger, even without other indications that an actual merger occurred.

Sibal warned that this interpretation can materially change parliamentary outcomes. The petition argued that an electoral majority can effectively be turned into a minority through “deemed” mergers, using the Tenth Schedule’s mechanics rather than real political consolidation.

The Supreme Court Bench recorded concerns about anti-defection law mechanics but indicated reluctance to entertain the plea. The Bench also suggested that shortcomings in the law are matters for Parliament rather than courts, and it pointed out that issues are usually raised on the floor of the House or by political parties. The Court therefore issued notice and requested a reply from the Union government.

Background and earlier position (anti-defection “merger” in Tenth Schedule Paragraph 4)

Related current affairs