RAS question
The 91st Amendment Act, 2003 made which change to the Anti-Defection Law?
Correct answer: (B) Deleted the provision for exemption from disqualification in case of a split.
The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 deleted Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, removing the split-based exemption from disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.
Explanation
The 91st Amendment tightened the Anti-Defection Law by deleting Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, which had protected a split in a legislature party from disqualification. That split meant one-third of members breaking away. The official Constitution text now shows Paragraph 3 as omitted by the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, section 5. What remains is Paragraph 4, under which disqualification does not apply in a case of merger, and that merger is deemed to have taken place only if not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to it. So the amendment did not create a new merger rule; it removed the easier split route.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) The two-thirds merger threshold is part of the continuing merger exception in Paragraph 4, so the 91st Amendment is not best described as raising that threshold from one-third.
- (C) Paragraph 6 still deals with the Chairman's or Speaker's decision on disqualification questions, while the 91st Amendment change is the omission of Paragraph 3.
- (D) The Tenth Schedule provision concerns members of Parliament and State Legislatures, and the 91st Amendment note records deletion of Paragraph 3, not any extension to local bodies.
Concept
This tests the Tenth Schedule and the Anti-Defection Law, especially the distinction between a deleted split exception and the surviving merger exception. It recurs in RAS because constitutional amendments affecting legislative stability are a standard governance theme.