He suggested scrapping the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and replacing it with a provision under which any legislator who changed parties mid-term would be disqualified from holding public office or any constitutional position for 10 years. Sibal also argued that resignation or merger should not provide an exemption from such disqualification.
The Tenth Schedule, introduced into the Constitution in 1985, provides for the disqualification of legislators who defect from their political parties. However, Paragraph 4 allows protection from disqualification when a merger takes place and at least two-thirds of the members of a legislature party agree to it.
Sibal has challenged the interpretation of this provision before the Supreme Court, arguing that a merger should involve the original political party and not merely its legislature wing. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on his plea in July and tagged it with a similar matter concerning defections in Goa.
Sibal has argued that the existing interpretation allows legislators to alter electoral mandates by invoking the merger provision, potentially turning a legislative minority into a majority without fresh elections.
The CJP’s proposed 20-year ban goes beyond Sibal’s suggested 10-year disqualification and seeks to bar defectors from both contesting elections and holding public office for a substantially longer period.
About the Author
