Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
1992 SCR (1) 686 · 5-judge bench
Challenged the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule (the Anti-Defection Law, added in 1985), and specifically whether the Speaker's decisions on defection disqualification could be reviewed by courts at all.
The Court upheld the Tenth Schedule's constitutionality, but held that the Speaker's defection rulings are subject to judicial review on limited grounds (like mala fide or perversity) — not final, unquestionable decisions, since a Speaker is typically from the ruling party and faces an obvious conflict of interest.
The reason defection disqualification cases can end up in court, not just before a potentially biased Speaker — directly underpins how the Tenth Schedule (which our BNS-adjacent constitutional content covers) actually functions in practice.
Keep exploring
This is a plain-English summary, not verbatim judgment text. Adhikar is an independent citizen-awareness platform, not a Government of India website. Always verify against the full judgment (indiankanoon.org, sci.gov.in) or a qualified advocate before relying on this for an actual legal situation.