Polity & Constitution Samyak IAS 17 Jun, 2026 2 min read

What does the Tenth Schedule provide on party mergers?

What does the Tenth Schedule provide on party mergers? -THE HINDU

Twenty rebel TMC MPs sought merger with NCPI, raising questions on the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule regarding merger of political parties.

Tenth Schedule Timeline

1960s–70s: Frequent defections of legislators caused political instability and collapse of elected governments.
1985: 52nd Constitutional Amendment inserted the Tenth Schedule, introducing the anti-defection law.
1985 Provision: Legislators could be disqualified for voluntarily giving up party membership or voting against party whip.
Original Exceptions: Disqualification did not apply in case of one-third split or two-thirds approved merger.
2003: Paragraph 3, allowing one-third split, was deleted to strengthen anti-defection law.
Post-2003 Issue: Two-thirds groups began using the merger route to escape disqualification.
2019 Rajasthan: All 6 BSP MLAs merged with Congress.
2022 Goa: 8 of 11 Congress MLAs merged with BJP.
2022 Shiv Sena Case: Two-thirds group claimed to be the real party, raising party vs legislature party issue.
2023 NCP Case: Similar split raised questions over recognition of the original political party.
2026 AAP Rajya Sabha Case: 7 of 10 AAP MPs reportedly merged with BJP, again raising merger interpretation concerns.

Present Bengal Case

After recent West Bengal polls, around 60 of 80 TMC MLAs formed a separate faction. The faction is led by Ritabrata Banerjee.
He was recognised as Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly, even after being expelled by TMC.
Meanwhile, 20 of 28 TMC Lok Sabha MPs submitted their decision to merge with NCPI to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Their claim: they form two-thirds of the TMC legislature party in Lok Sabha.
They argue that this protects them from disqualification under the Tenth Schedule merger provision.
Core issue: Whether two-thirds MPs/MLAs of a legislature party can merge with another party without the original political party also merging

Way Forward

Clarify merger provision: Tenth Schedule should clearly state that immunity applies only when the original political party merges, not merely when two-thirds of the legislature party shifts.
Remove ambiguity in Paragraph 4: Parliament or Supreme Court should clarify whether merger requires another political party already represented in the House.
Independent decision-making body: Disqualification cases should not remain solely with the Speaker/Chairman, as they may act with political bias.
Independent tribunal: As suggested by the Supreme Court in K.M. Singh case, 2020, disqualification powers may be given to an independent tribunal headed by judges.
Authoritative SC judgment: Supreme Court should settle issues related to party merger, legislature party merger and anti-defection immunity.