RAS question
The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 made which key change to the Anti-Defection Law?
Correct answer: (B) Deleted the exemption for splits (one-third) and retained only merger (two-thirds).
The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 deleted the split exemption in Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, so only merger under the two-thirds rule remained as an exemption from anti-defection disqualification.
Explanation
The anti-defection law already existed before 2003; the 91st Amendment tightened it. The existing Tenth Schedule had allowed a split by one-third of a legislature party to escape disqualification. Section 5 of the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 amended the Tenth Schedule by removing references to Paragraph 3 and then omitting Paragraph 3 itself. That matters because Paragraph 3 was the split exemption. After this change, a member could no longer rely on a one-third split to avoid disqualification. The only relevant group exception retained in the explanation is merger, where two-thirds of the members merge with another party.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Disqualification under the anti-defection law was introduced by the 52nd Amendment in 1985, whereas the 91st Amendment dealt with removing the split exemption.
- (C) The 91st Amendment did not remove the anti-defection law; it strengthened the Tenth Schedule by omitting Paragraph 3.
- (D) Judicial review of the Speaker's decision comes from the Supreme Court's Kihoto Hollohan ruling, not from the 91st Amendment.
Concept
This tests the Anti-Defection Law under the Tenth Schedule, especially the difference between split and merger. It recurs in RAS because constitutional amendments affecting political stability and legislative ethics are standard polity themes.