• Dr.Shashank Misra

The debate about political defection continues to be intense in Indian legislative institutions. Indian legislators have failed to control political defection despite their efforts to implement provisions such as Schedule X of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Speaker retains wide authority to handle matters of defection but lacks specific time limits in resolving these cases, which produces prolonged uncertainty. The decision-making power of Speakers regarding defection cases creates a scenario where defendants lack any way to seek legal protection because the judiciary chooses not to intervene. The legal precedents, particularly the landmark judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (1998). The situation became more complicated when the court issued its decision through P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998), which validated Article 105(2) provisions yet allowed more political corruption to occur. This paper provides an in-depth study of defection obstacles while evaluating legislative and judicial handling methods as well as system subversion protocols to deliver a thorough evaluation of the problem’s impact on democratic stability and constitutional integrity.

Anti-defection law, Schedule X, Constitution, P.V. Narasimha Rao, Article 105(2)

"Defection and the Indian Political System: Legal Gaps, Speaker's Power, and the Road to Subversion", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.12, Issue 2, page no.g486-g494, February-2025, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2502658.pdf

"Defection and the Indian Political System: Legal Gaps, Speaker's Power, and the Road to Subversion", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.12, Issue 2, page no. ppg486-g494, February-2025, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2502658.pdf