The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs andmdash; giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speakerandrsquo;s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speakerandrsquo;s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel andamp; Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly andamp; Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speakerandrsquo;s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The phenomenon of defections is not new to In...

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.
Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.
The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992). While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.
The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.

Q. Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?

a)
The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.
b)
The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.
c)
The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.
d)
The author is satisfied with the effects of 91^stamendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has bee...

Option 2 mentions the case of a private blood bank in Phagwara which deceived a patient by selling blood laced with a contaminant. This can be considered an example of the situation in which illegal blood banks deceive the patients. Options 1 and 3 are unrelated. Option 4 presents a problem and does not represent the situation given in the question.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.What is the main loophole of the current Anti-Defection Law as per the author?

View answer

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.What amendment is the author suggesting to the current law to curb loopholes?

View answer

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.What is the role of the Supreme Court in matters of Anti—Defection cases?

View answer

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?

View answer

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Some MLAs have submitted their resignations to the Speaker. However, the Speaker did not take any call on the resignation of the above persons. Aggrieved by the fact that their resignations were not accepted, and with the impending trust vote being inevitable, most of the above persons approached the Supreme Court by way of a Writ Petition. Based on the author's reasoning and essence of the passage, does the petition deserve to be entertained?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The phenomenon of defections is not new to Indian politics. It has been plaguing the political landscape for over five decades. The recurrence of this evil phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law, which defined three grounds of disqualification of MLAs — giving up party membership; going against party whip; and abstaining from voting.Resignation as MLA was not one of the conditions. Exploiting this loophole, the 17 rebel MLAs in Karnataka resigned, their act aimed at ending the majority of the ruling coalition and, at the same time, avoiding disqualification. However, the Speaker refused to accept the resignations and declared them disqualified. This was possible as the legislation empowers the presiding officer of the House (i.e. the Speaker) to decide on complaints of defection under no time constraint.The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review. However, this safeguard was struck down inKihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others(1992).While the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the anti-defection law, thereby making her/his decisions subject to judicial review. InShrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors(2019), where the three-judge SC bench upheld the then Karnataka Speaker’s decision of disqualification of the 17 rebel MLAs. However, it struck down his ban on the MLAs from contesting elections till 2023, negating the only possible permanent solution to the problem. The Supreme Court played the role of a neutral umpire in this political slugfest. The Anti-Defection Law provided a safeguard for defections made on genuine ideological differences. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split. The 91st Amendment also barred the appointment of defectors as Ministers until their disqualification period is over or they are re-elected, whichever is earlier.The main issue is that the defectors treat disqualification as a mere detour, before they return to the House or government by re-contesting. This can only be stopped by extending the disqualification period from re-contesting and appointment to Chairmanships/Ministries to at least six years. The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for least one election cycle, which is five years.Q.Which statement sums up the mood of the author regarding the state of Anti-Defection laws in the country?a)The author lauds the chanakya niti of political parties to find loopholes of the Anti-Defection laws in the country.b)The author is satisfied with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have curbed the practice all together.c)The author is concerned with the loopholes of the anti-defection law being used to defeat the purpose of the law itself.d)The author is satisfied with the effects of 91st amendment act to fill in the gaps of the law.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam