{"id":92092,"date":"2026-04-15T17:57:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=92092"},"modified":"2026-04-17T12:01:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T06:31:18","slug":"91st-constitutional-amendment-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/91st-constitutional-amendment-act\/","title":{"rendered":"91st Constitutional Amendment Act, Background, Provisions, Case Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> was enacted in <\/span><b>2003<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to strengthen the anti-defection framework in India and to bring stability to governments. The amendment made important changes to the <\/span><b>Constitution of India<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> by modifying provisions related to political defections and the size of the Council of Ministers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This amendment mainly strengthened the <\/span><b>Tenth Schedule<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which deals with the <\/span><b>Anti-Defection Law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, and also introduced limits on the number of ministers in the <\/span><b>Union and State governments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. The aim was to prevent political instability caused by frequent defections and to ensure responsible governance.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act Background<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> was introduced to address the growing problem of <\/span><b>political defections and instability in governments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>52nd Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1985) introduced the Anti-Defection Law but allowed <\/span><b>one-third of legislators to split from a party<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which created loopholes.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Frequent party switching by legislators caused <\/span><b>political instability and misuse of ministerial positions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To remove these loopholes and strengthen the law, Parliament enacted the <\/span><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act in 2003<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act Provisions<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> introduced important provisions to strengthen the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/anti-defection-law\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Anti-Defection Law<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and to control the size of the Council of Ministers in the Union and State governments. The amendment made changes to the <\/span><b>Constitution of India<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> by modifying <\/span><b>Article 75<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and <\/span><b>Article 164<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, and by adding new provisions to prevent political defections.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Limit on Council of Ministers:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, cannot exceed <\/span><b>15% of the total strength of the <a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/lok-sabha\/\" target=\"_blank\">Lok Sabha<\/a> or State Legislative Assembly<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Minimum Number of Ministers:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> In smaller states, the number of ministers in the Council of Ministers must <\/span><b>not be less than 12<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Disqualification of Defectors from Ministerial Office:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The amendment added <\/span><b>Article 75(1B)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and <\/span><b>Article 164(1B)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which state that a member disqualified under the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/10th-schedule-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Tenth Schedule<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> cannot be appointed as a minister until they are re-elected.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Disqualification from Holding Political Posts:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The amendment introduced <\/span><b>Article 361B<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, which prevents a disqualified legislator from holding any <\/span><b>remunerative political post<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> until their term ends or they are re-elected.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Removal of Split Provision:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The amendment removed the earlier rule that allowed <\/span><b>one-third of legislators to split from a political party without disqualification<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. Now only a <\/span><b>merger supported by two-thirds of legislators<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is permitted under the Anti-Defection Law.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act Case Laws<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Several important judgments of the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/supreme-court-of-india\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Supreme Court of India<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> have interpreted the Anti-Defection Law and the provisions strengthened by the <\/span><b>91st Constitutional Amendment Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. These cases clarified how disqualification of legislators and party defections should be handled under the <\/span><b>Tenth Schedule<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><b> Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the <\/span><b>Tenth Schedule<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (Anti-Defection Law). The Court ruled that the <\/span><b>Speaker or Chairman has the authority to decide disqualification cases<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, but their decisions are subject to <\/span><b>judicial review by the courts<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b> Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of <\/span><b>\u201cvoluntarily giving up membership of a political party.\u201d<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 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.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b> Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This case involved defections in the <\/span><b>Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. The Supreme Court emphasized that the <\/span><b>Speaker must act promptly while deciding disqualification petitions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> under the Anti-Defection Law to maintain the stability of democratic governments.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003) strengthened the Anti-Defection Law, removed the split provision, and limited the size of the Council of Ministers in India.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":92048,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[786],"tags":[5107],"class_list":{"0":"post-92092","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-general-studies","8":"tag-indian-polity","9":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92092"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92092\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92096,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92092\/revisions\/92096"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/92048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}