91st Constitutional Amendment Act, Background, Provisions, Case Laws

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act was enacted in 2003 to strengthen the anti-defection framework in India and to bring stability to governments. The amendment made important changes to the Constitution of India by modifying provisions related to political defections and the size of the Council of Ministers.

This amendment mainly strengthened the Tenth Schedule, which deals with the Anti-Defection Law, and also introduced limits on the number of ministers in the Union and State governments. The aim was to prevent political instability caused by frequent defections and to ensure responsible governance.

91st Constitutional Amendment Act Background

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act was introduced to address the growing problem of political defections and instability in governments.

• The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1985) introduced the Anti-Defection Law but allowed one-third of legislators to split from a party, which created loopholes.
• Frequent party switching by legislators caused political instability and misuse of ministerial positions.
• To remove these loopholes and strengthen the law, Parliament enacted the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act in 2003.

91st Constitutional Amendment Act Provisions

The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act introduced important provisions to strengthen the Anti-Defection Law and to control the size of the Council of Ministers in the Union and State governments. The amendment made changes to the Constitution of India by modifying Article 75 and Article 164, and by adding new provisions to prevent political defections.

• Limit on Council of Ministers: The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, cannot exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly.
• Minimum Number of Ministers: In smaller states, the number of ministers in the Council of Ministers must not be less than 12.
• Disqualification of Defectors from Ministerial Office: The amendment added Article 75(1B) and Article 164(1B), which state that a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule cannot be appointed as a minister until they are re-elected.
• Disqualification from Holding Political Posts: The amendment introduced Article 361B, which prevents a disqualified legislator from holding any remunerative political post until their term ends or they are re-elected.
• Removal of Split Provision: The amendment removed the earlier rule that allowed one-third of legislators to split from a political party without disqualification. Now only a merger supported by two-thirds of legislators is permitted under the Anti-Defection Law.

‹ ›

91st Constitutional Amendment Act Case Laws

Several important judgments of the Supreme Court of India have interpreted the Anti-Defection Law and the provisions strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act. These cases clarified how disqualification of legislators and party defections should be handled under the Tenth Schedule.

1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The Court ruled that the Speaker or Chairman has the authority to decide disqualification cases, but their decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts.
2. Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “voluntarily giving up membership of a political party.” The Court held that a legislator may be disqualified even without formally resigning from the party if their actions clearly show that they have abandoned party loyalty.
3. Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya: This case involved defections in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Speaker must act promptly while deciding disqualification petitions under the Anti-Defection Law to maintain the stability of democratic governments.