The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, is a landmark constitutional amendment that introduced the Anti-Defection Law in India. It was enacted to address the problem of frequent political defections by elected representatives, which had caused significant political instability and undermined the mandate of the electorate. The issue was famously encapsulated by the phrase "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" after an MLA in Haryana changed his party three times in a single day in 1967.
The Act, which received Presidential assent on February 15, 1985, works by adding the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. This Schedule lays down the provisions for the disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of State Legislatures (MLAs) on the ground of defection. A legislator can be disqualified if they voluntarily give up the membership of their political party, or if they vote or abstain from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by their party (the party whip). The Act also made changes to Articles 101, 102, 190, and 191 of the Constitution, which deal with the vacation of seats and disqualification from membership in Parliament and State Legislatures.
The original Act allowed for an exception to disqualification in the case of a "split," where one-third of the members of a legislature party formed a separate group. However, this provision was removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which strengthened the anti-defection framework. The 91st Amendment also mandated that only a "merger" of a political party with another party, involving at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party, would be exempt from disqualification. Furthermore, the 91st Amendment connected the law to ministerial office by disqualifying a defector from being appointed as a minister or holding any remunerative political post until their term expires. The decision on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is made by the Presiding Officer of the House (Speaker/Chairman), and this decision is subject to judicial review, as established in the judgment of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu.