AAP to seek disqualification of MPs who defected to BJP

Seven of the Aam Aadmi Party's ten Rajya Sabha MPs — including Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, Ashok Mittal, Harbhajan Singh, Rajinder Gupta, Vikram Sahney, a...

What Happened

Seven of the Aam Aadmi Party's ten Rajya Sabha MPs — including Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, Ashok Mittal, Harbhajan Singh, Rajinder Gupta, Vikram Sahney, and Swati Maliwal — announced their merger with the Bharatiya Janata Party in April 2026, shifting their party affiliation in the Rajya Sabha.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman subsequently approved the merger, and the seven MPs were formally listed under the BJP's Rajya Sabha group, raising the party's strength in the Upper House to 113 and reducing AAP's representation to three.
AAP's floor leader in the Rajya Sabha filed a petition with the Rajya Sabha Chairman seeking the disqualification of the seven MPs under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (the Anti-Defection Law), arguing that the purported merger does not satisfy constitutional requirements.
The AAP's position is that the Tenth Schedule does not recognise any form of split or breakaway group — only a merger with an independent majority at the original political party level qualifies as protection from disqualification.
A counter-argument is being advanced that the seven MPs constitute two-thirds of AAP's ten-member Rajya Sabha legislature party, which they argue satisfies the merger exception.

Static Topic Bridges

The Tenth Schedule: Anti-Defection Law

The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, to deter political defections and ensure that elected members remain accountable to the voters and parties that elected them. It applies to both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures.

Inserted by: 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 (in force from March 18, 1985).
Applicable to: Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and members of State Legislatures.
Grounds for disqualification (Paragraph 2):
Voluntarily giving up membership of the political party on whose ticket one was elected.
Voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the party's direction without prior permission.
Decision-making authority: The Speaker (Lok Sabha/State Assembly) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha) decides disqualification petitions; the decision is subject to judicial review.
Landmark case: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and affirmed that the Speaker's/Chairman's decision is subject to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, but only after the final order is made (not during pendency).

Connection to this news: AAP's disqualification petition invokes Paragraph 2(1)(a) — that the seven MPs voluntarily gave up membership of the party on whose ticket they were elected — and challenges the validity of the merger defence.

The Merger Exception (Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule)

The original Tenth Schedule (1985) permitted both "splits" (one-third of the legislature party) and "mergers" (two-thirds of the legislature party joining another party) as exceptions to disqualification. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 removed the "split" exception entirely, retaining only the "merger" exception to curb opportunistic floor-crossing.

91st Amendment Act, 2003: Removed the "split" exception (Paragraph 3 of the original Tenth Schedule); the "merger" exception under Paragraph 4 survives.
Merger exception (Paragraph 4): A member is not disqualified if their original political party merges with another political party, provided at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to the merger.
The Supreme Court has clarified (in Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, 2007) that there is a "twin test" for a valid merger: (i) the original political party (not just the legislature party) must merge, and (ii) at least two-thirds of the legislature party must support the merger.
The crux of the current dispute: Whether the seven MPs' decision alone — without a corresponding merger at the AAP's organisational level — constitutes a valid merger under Paragraph 4, or whether it is a disqualifiable defection under Paragraph 2.

Connection to this news: The seven MPs claim merger protection under Paragraph 4 (they constitute 7 of 10, i.e., more than two-thirds of the Rajya Sabha legislature party). AAP argues the "twin test" requires a merger of the original political party, which has not occurred — AAP as a party has not merged with the BJP.

Speaker/Chairman's Role and Judicial Review

Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or relevant State Assembly) and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are the sole decision-makers on disqualification petitions. This quasi-judicial role has been subject to significant debate, given the potential for bias when the presiding officer belongs to the ruling party.

Kihoto Hollohan (1992): Speaker/Chairman's decision is final within legislative proceedings but is subject to judicial review by High Courts (Article 226) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) after the final order is passed.
The Tenth Schedule's Paragraph 7 (which originally barred judicial review) was struck down in Kihoto Hollohan as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted delays in Speakers deciding disqualification petitions; in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker (2020), it directed that such decisions must be made within a "reasonable time."
The Vice President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and will decide AAP's disqualification petition.

Connection to this news: The Rajya Sabha Chairman's approval of the merger and the pending disqualification petition place the Chairman in the classic quasi-judicial dilemma under the Tenth Schedule — the outcome is reviewable by courts.

Key Facts & Data

Tenth Schedule: Inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985; applies to Parliament and State Legislatures.
Merger exception: Paragraph 4; requires two-thirds of the legislature party AND a merger of the original political party (twin test).
Split exception: Removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003.
Decision authority: Rajya Sabha Chairman (for Rajya Sabha MPs); Speaker (for Lok Sabha/State Assembly MLAs).
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Upheld Tenth Schedule validity; confirmed judicial review after final order.
AAP's Rajya Sabha strength before defection: 10 MPs; after merger: 3 MPs.
BJP's Rajya Sabha strength after merger: 113.
Seven MPs involved: Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, Ashok Mittal, Harbhajan Singh, Rajinder Gupta, Vikram Sahney, Swati Maliwal.
Rajya Sabha Chairman is the Vice President of India (currently C.P. Radhakrishnan as acting Chairman).