Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992)
– Validity of the Anti-Defection Law
Background of the Case
The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 introduced the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution to curb political defections.
Key features:
- Disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection
- Decision-making authority vested in the Speaker/Chairman of the House
However, Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule:
- Barred the jurisdiction of courts in matters relating to disqualification
- Excluded:
- Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136
- High Courts’ jurisdiction under Article 226
This provision was challenged in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can Parliament exclude judicial review through a constitutional amendment?
- Was the 52nd Amendment procedurally valid under Article 368(2)?
- Is the Anti-Defection Law itself constitutional?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced and balanced verdict.
(a) Paragraph 7 Declared Unconstitutional
The Court held that:
- Paragraph 7 affected the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court
- Such a change altered the federal balance
- Therefore, under Article 368(2), it required ratification by → At least half of the State Legislatures
Since no such ratification had taken place → Paragraph 7 was declared unconstitutional
(b) Rest of the Tenth Schedule Upheld
Importantly, the Court:
- Upheld the validity of the remaining provisions of the Tenth Schedule
- Applied the doctrine of severability
Thus: The Anti-Defection Law survived, but without the ouster of judicial review.
(c) Judicial Review Remains Available
The Court clarified that:
- Decisions of the Speaker/Chairman are subject to → Judicial review
- However, such review is available:
- After the Speaker has made a decision
- Not at an interlocutory stage
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Reinforced judicial review as a basic feature
- Clarified procedural requirements of constitutional amendments
- Preserved the Anti-Defection Law while preventing its misuse
- Strengthened the federal principle
Impact of the Judgement
- Prevented complete exclusion of courts from defection matters
- Ensured accountability of the Speaker’s decisions
- Set the precedent for later cases on defection and Speaker’s powers
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Aspect | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Anti-Defection Law | Upheld |
| Judicial Review | Restored |
| Federal Ratification | Enforced |
Summary
The Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992) struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule for lack of state ratification, upheld the Anti-Defection Law, and reaffirmed judicial review over Speaker’s decisions.