Context:  Constitutional courts cannot judicially review disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution until the Speaker or Chairman makes a final decision on merits.

• The judgment is significant in the case of the ousted Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot and the 18 MLAs, who were issued a notice under the anti-defection law after the ruling Congress sought their disqualification and they have moved to Rajasthan Highcourt regarding defection.
• They said that the provision infringes into their right to express dissent and is a violation of their fundamental right to free speech as a legislator.

What is Anti-Defection Law?

• The anti-defection law seeks to prevent political defections which may be due to reward of office or other similar considerations. 
• It was inserted in the Constitution in 1985 by the 52nd amendment. 
• Defection means that an elected legislator changed their party after winning an election.
• Any member of the House can petition the Presiding Officer of a legislature— the speaker—to disqualify an MLA under the Tenth Schedule.

Disqualification criteria

• If a member of a house belonging to a political party involves in the following activities, he/she stands disqualified 
• Voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party, or
• Votes, or does not vote in the legislature, contrary to the directions of his political party. However, if the member has taken prior permission, or is condoned by the party within 15 days from such voting or abstention, the member shall not be disqualified.
• If an independent candidate joins a political party after the election.
• If a nominated member joins a party six months after he becomes a member of the legislature.
• The law applies to both Parliament and state assemblies.

Exemptions

• If a member goes out of his party as a result of a merger of the party with another party. A merger takes place when two-thirds of the members of the party have agreed to such a merger.
• If a member, after being elected as the presiding officer of the House, voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or rejoins it after he ceases to hold that office. This exemption has been provided in view of the dignity and impartiality of the office.

Speaker’s Powers with regard to Anti-Defection Law

• The power for the disqualification under 10th schedule arising out of defection is vested in the Speaker.
• In the verdict of  Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachilhu case (1993), the Supreme Court said that the decision of the speaker is not final and can be questioned in any court of law. It is subject to judicial review on the grounds of malafide, perversity, and any such grounds. 

What was the Kihoto Hollohan case?

• The law covering the disqualification of legislators and the powers of the Speaker in deciding such matters became part of the statute book in 1985 when the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution was adopted.
• A constitutional challenge to the Tenth Schedule was settled by the apex court in Kihoto Hollohan.
• The principal question before the Supreme Court in the case was whether the powerful role given to the Speaker violated the doctrine of Basic Structure — the judicial principle that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments by Parliament, laid down in the landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala (1973). 
• The Kihoto Hollohan judgment is significant in the case of ousted Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot and other 18 MLAs, who were issued a notice under the anti-defection law after the ruling Congress sought their disqualification.
• The apex court has mentioned that anti-defection law is valid as a political party functions on the strength of shared beliefs. Its own political stability and social utility depend on the concerted action of its members in furtherance of those commonly held principles. 

Stand of Constitution bench of Rajasthan Highcourt

• It explained that the reason for limiting the role of courts in ongoing defection proceedings is that the “office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions.
• It mentioned that the evolution of the institution of parliamentary democracy has as its pivot the institution of the Speaker. He is said to be the very embodiment of propriety and impartiality.