Rajya Sabha tally: BJP’s numbers rise to 113 as 7 AAP members merge

The Rajya Sabha Chairman accepted a merger petition filed by seven members from AAP's Rajya Sabha group into the Bharatiya Janata Party, raising BJP's Rajya ...

What Happened

The Rajya Sabha Chairman accepted a merger petition filed by seven members from AAP's Rajya Sabha group into the Bharatiya Janata Party, raising BJP's Rajya Sabha strength to 113.
The seven members who merged are: Raghav Chadha, Ashok Kumar Mittal, Harbhajan Singh, Sandeep Kumar Pathak, Vikramjit Singh Sahney, Swati Maliwal, and Rajinder Gupta.
AAP had 10 members in the Rajya Sabha before the merger; seven constitutes exactly two-thirds of ten, meeting the mathematical threshold under the Tenth Schedule.
AAP separately submitted a petition to the Rajya Sabha Chairman seeking disqualification of the seven members, arguing the merger does not fulfil the legal requirements under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.
Constitutional experts and legal commentators have questioned whether the merger passes the full legal test, given that AAP as a political party continues to exist and has not merged with BJP at the organisational level.

Static Topic Bridges

The Tenth Schedule and Anti-Defection Law

The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985. It was enacted to address the phenomenon of "aaya ram gaya ram" politics — the practice of legislators switching parties frequently for personal gain. It applies to both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures.

Paragraph 2: A member is disqualified if they voluntarily give up membership of their original political party or vote/abstain contrary to party directions.
Paragraph 4 (Merger Exception): A member is not disqualified where the merger involves not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party. The merger must be of the original political party — not just the legislature wing — with another party.
Paragraph 6: The Speaker/Chairman of the House is the final authority to decide disqualification petitions; this decision is subject to judicial review.
91st Amendment Act, 2003: Deleted the "split" exemption (which previously protected one-third of legislators splitting off), leaving merger as the only valid exception to disqualification.
The Tribunal-like role of the Speaker/Chairman has been criticised since they are often partisan figures.

Connection to this news: The Chairman's acceptance of the merger invoked Paragraph 4. The contested legal question is whether seven legislators moving to another party while their parent party continues to exist constitutes a "merger of the original political party" as required by the Schedule.

The "Twin Test" for a Valid Merger

Constitutional jurisprudence has developed a two-limb test for a merger under Paragraph 4 to be valid, distinguishing between a mere bloc migration and a genuine party merger.

Limb 1 — Merger of the original party: The original political party itself must merge with the other party at the organisational level. A faction of the legislature party moving does not, by itself, constitute merger of the original party.
Limb 2 — Two-thirds of the legislature party: At least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party must support the merger.
Both limbs must be satisfied. Meeting only the two-thirds numerical threshold without an organisational merger at the party level does not satisfy Paragraph 4.
Courts, including the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), upheld the Tenth Schedule's validity while affirming judicial review of the Speaker's/Chairman's decisions.

Connection to this news: Critics argue that only Limb 2 (two-thirds numerically) was met here, while Limb 1 (organisational merger of AAP with BJP) was not. AAP continues to function as a party in Delhi and Punjab, making this a contested application of Paragraph 4.

Role of the Rajya Sabha Chairman

The Vice President of India serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Under the Tenth Schedule, the Chairman has quasi-judicial authority to decide disqualification petitions.

The Chairman's decision is not subject to judicial review while the proceedings are ongoing; courts can review only after the final order (as settled in Kihoto Hollohan).
The Chairman must act judicially — in accordance with principles of natural justice — when deciding disqualification petitions.
There is no fixed timeframe within which the Chairman must decide such petitions; this has been a persistent criticism of the anti-defection mechanism.

Connection to this news: The Chairman's acceptance of the merger petition is itself the subject of AAP's counter-petition for disqualification. The outcome of that petition will determine whether the seven members can retain their seats.

Key Facts & Data

Tenth Schedule inserted by: Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985.
Merger provision: Paragraph 4 — requires two-thirds of the legislature party and an organisational merger of the original party.
Split exception abolished: 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, removed the one-third split exemption.
Rajya Sabha composition post-merger (reported): BJP: 113 seats; AAP: 3 seats (remaining after 7 merged).
Landmark case: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Supreme Court upheld Tenth Schedule's constitutionality; finality clause of Speaker/Chairman's order partially struck down as unconstitutional, enabling judicial review.
Chairman's role: Vice President of India is ex-officio Rajya Sabha Chairman (Article 64 and Article 89).
Constitutional articles: Articles 102(2) and 191(2) trigger disqualification; Tenth Schedule specifies the grounds.
Total Rajya Sabha strength: 245 (233 elected + 12 nominated); majority mark: 123.