Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs' likely switch: Can they escape the anti-defection law?

📌 Summary:

• Context: Six of nine Shiv Sena (UBT) Lok Sabha MPs are likely to move to the rival Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde, reviving the anti-defection question
• Core issue: the Constitution no longer recognises a mere "split" as a defence — so rebel MPs face disqualification risk
• Legal framework: the Tenth Schedule penalises defection; Paragraph 2 disqualifies a member who (a) voluntarily gives up party membership or (b) votes/abstains against the party whip
• Key point: the one-third "split" exemption was deleted by the 91st Constitutional Amendment (2003); now the only safe route is a "merger" requiring two-thirds of the legislature party to agree (Paragraph 4)
• Adjudication: the Speaker/Presiding Officer decides disqualification, a process often criticised for delay and partisanship (as seen in the earlier Maharashtra Shiv Sena split litigation)

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (Polity) — anti-defection law, Tenth Schedule, role of the Speaker, and challenges to representative democracy from defections.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment (1985); the "split" exception was removed by the 91st Amendment (2003)
• "Merger" defence (Para 4) requires two-thirds of members to agree
• Disqualification is decided by the Speaker/Chairman, subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan case)

🔑 Key Term: Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) — provisions disqualifying legislators who defect, aimed at curbing horse-trading and instability.