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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.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.The recent judgement of the SC in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Ors vs Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors (2019) upheld which of the following statement?a)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection and debar MLAs from contesting from the same seat till the term of the assembly expires.b)The speaker cannot disqualify MLAs from their seat if they had tendered their resignations already.c)The speaker can disqualify MLAs from their seat on account of defection but cannot bar them from contesting again even for the same seat.d)The speaker is merely a figurehead and has no power to disqualify an MLA or debar them from recontesting.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.