New Delhi, July 27, 2026: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that there are "enormous issues" with the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, even as it agreed to examine a plea filed by Senior Advocate and Independent Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal challenging the way the law is currently interpreted.

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued a notice to the Union government on Sibal's petition, which questions the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule that allows legislators to escape disqualification by claiming a merger with another political party. The court tagged the matter with a pending case related to defections in Goa.

Law Under Scrutiny

During the hearing, the Bench remarked that while the Supreme Court had upheld the Tenth Schedule in the past, many of the problems now being witnessed stem from the law as framed by Parliament itself.

"Tenth Schedule is intended to regulate the mechanism between the legislators. We have upheld the Tenth Schedule. We have been seeing it. There are enormous issues with the Tenth Schedule. But who made it? It's the making of the MPs," the Bench observed, adding that such concerns are ideally meant to be addressed on the floor of the House.

Responding to the court, Sibal argued that lawmakers, like courts, can also make mistakes. He said the issue may never be resolved politically because the present interpretation benefits those in power. The Bench acknowledged that several issues arise from the law and decided to issue notice on the plea.

Challenge To Merger Provision

Sibal has challenged the interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, which permits two-thirds of a legislature party to avoid disqualification by claiming a merger with another political party.

He argued that such a "deemed merger" should not be allowed unless the original political party itself decides to merge.

The petition comes amid recent instances of MPs from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT) joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other political parties by invoking the merger provision.

According to Sibal, this has serious consequences for India's democratic system because it allows the composition of legislatures to change after elections.

When the court asked why he had approached it directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, Sibal pointed out that a similar matter concerning defections in Goa is already pending before the Supreme Court. He said the issue has "huge repercussions on our polity" because a minority can become a majority, and vice versa, through such defections.

Constitutional Interpretation Sought

In his petition, Sibal has sought a declaration that Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule should not be interpreted to mean that two-thirds of a legislature party can avoid disqualification through a deemed merger when the parent political party has not merged or even attempted to do so.

The plea argues that the current interpretation has encouraged wholesale defections, unprincipled break-ups of political parties and horse trading, undermining democratic accountability and the electoral mandate. It contends that the exception under the anti-defection law has effectively overtaken the rule itself.

Sibal has urged the court to read down the provision, saying it violates the basic structure of the Constitution by enabling large-scale defections that distort representative democracy. According to the petition, the anti-defection law has failed to achieve its objective because of the broad interpretation of the merger provision.

Political Instability Highlighted

The petition also refers to a series of political developments over the past decade, claiming that governments in Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra were toppled or prevented from being formed because of large-scale defections.

Also Watch:

Supreme Court Flags 'Enormous Issues' In Anti-Defection Law, Seeks Centre's Response On Kapil Sibal's Plea