Which one of the following is NOT true of the 10th schedule of the Con

Which one of the following is NOT true of the 10th schedule of the Constitution of India pertaining to disqualification of members of the Parliament and State legislatures ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

The schedule lays down that elected members may be disqualified on the grounds of defection

Disqualification on ground of defection does not apply in cases of merger with another political party

Cases of dispute are decided by the Speaker or Chairman of the House concerned

The Supreme Court of India is the final arbiter in cases which remain unresolved

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The statement that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in cases which remain unresolved is not accurate. The decision on disqualification under the 10th Schedule is made by the Speaker (in Lok Sabha) or Chairman (in Rajya Sabha), and this decision is subject to judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Court reviews the decision of the presiding officer; it doesn’t step in to resolve cases that the Speaker/Chairman failed to resolve.

– The 10th Schedule provides for disqualification of MPs and MLAs on grounds of defection.
– Exceptions exist, such as in cases of merger of political parties under specific conditions (e.g., 2/3rd members agree).
– The authority to decide on disqualification cases rests with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Legislative Council.
– The decision of the presiding officer is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts (established in the Kihoto Hollohan case, 1993).

The 10th Schedule was added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. It aims to prevent political defections. The process involves the presiding officer of the House making the decision based on the rules framed under the schedule. While judicial review is available, the court examines the legality/constitutionality of the presiding officer’s decision rather than acting as an alternative forum to resolve the defection case itself. The phrase “cases which remain unresolved” is problematic as the Speaker/Chairman is mandated to resolve the cases.

More similar MCQ questions for Exam preparation:-