The Supreme Court issued notice on Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal's plea challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule that permits legislators to avoid disqualification through political party mergers

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, which permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by claiming protection under the political party merger provision.

The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the matter and decided to tag the petition with connected cases already pending before the Court.

At the outset, Justice PS Narasimha questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. "Why Article 32?" the Bench asked.

Responding, Sibal submitted that the issue carried "huge repercussions on policy" and pointed out that a similar controversy arising from Goa was already pending before the Supreme Court.

The Bench indicated that the present petition would be tagged with the pending matter.

Urging the Court to consider the broader constitutional implications, Sibal submitted that he was raising the issue "in another capacity" and argued that the present interpretation of the Tenth Schedule undermines the democratic mandate delivered by voters.

"The electoral verdict can be changed through this process. A majority will become a minority, and vice versa," Sibal argued, contending that legislators are able to evade disqualification by taking recourse to the merger provision under the anti-defection law.

Justice Narasimha observed that such disputes ordinarily arise within the legislative framework. "These are issues typically to be raised before the floor of the House, and if not, then before the political party. The Tenth Schedule is intended to regulate that mechanism," the Bench remarked.

The Court, however, acknowledged that the functioning of the anti-defection law has generated significant constitutional concerns over the years. 


"What has transpired in the working of the Tenth Schedule, we have been seeing it. There are enormous issues," Justice Narasimha observed.

Describing the existing interpretation of the merger provision as deeply flawed, Sibal submitted that it amounted to "a complete fraud."

Justice Narasimha responded that the issues stem from the legislative framework itself. "Who made it? It is the making of the Members of Parliament. These are problems of the legislators to decide," the Bench remarked.

The Court then sought details of the connected proceedings, asking which matter was pending and who had been arrayed as parties.

Sibal informed the Bench that only the Union of India had been impleaded as a respondent in the present petition.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice on the plea.

Notably, on July 22, Sibal had moved a petition before the Supreme Court raising concerns over law against political defection is being rendered ineffective. Sibal mentioned his plea before a Bench leed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. "What is happening in this country? If this continues, 10th Schedule will become...There is a another plea listed," Sibal had said. Sibal had told court that the Parliament is being altered by these so called political mergers. The plea has challenged an interpretation of the Tenth Schedule which allows splinter groups to escape the anti-defection law by adopting the route of merger.

What is the Tenth Schedule 

The 10th Schedule of Indian Constitution, added through the 52nd Amendment in 1985, is the Anti-Defection Law. This law was brought in to curb political defections, a growing problem at the time and to ensure elected representatives remained loyal to the party on whose ticket they won.

Originally, the Tenth Schedule recognised a 'split' in a legislature party if at least one-third members formed a new group or joined another party. But, after the 91st Amendment which came into force in 2004, the law recognises a 'merger' that requires at least two-third members of a legislature party to join another one or form a new one without falling foul of the anti-defection law.

In a related development, the Supreme Court, earlier this month had issued notice on a plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Lok Sabha MP Arvind Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs who sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Arvind Sawant has approached the Supreme Court challenging Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six MPs who unilaterally sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Challenging a circular issued by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat as ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse, Sawant, who is the parliamentary party leader of Shiv Sena (UBT), argued that the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign centred around Eknath Shinde's alleged usurpation of Balasaheb Thackeray's legacy through illegal means and unconstitutionally orchestrated defections.

Case Title: Kapil Sibal v. Union of India

Bench: Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Hearing Date: July 27, 2026

Tags: