The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, known as the Anti-Defection Law, was introduced to prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office or material benefits. This law includes several provisions to disqualify members of Parliament and state legislatures on the grounds of defection. A key component of this law was addressed in the Constitution (Ninety First Amendment) Act, 2003, which made significant changes to its provisions.
One of the critical adjustments made by this amendment was the omission of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule. Originally, paragraph 3 provided an exemption under the Anti-Defection Law for disqualifying members when a party underwent a "split". It allowed one-third of the members of a legislative party to split without facing disqualification.
The amendment aimed to curb frequent defections caused by such splits by removing the exception. Hence, the specific change made by the Ninety First Amendment was the removal of the exemption clause that prevented disqualification due to a split. Therefore, the correct answer to the question is:
Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of split
Match List-I with List-II 
In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court of India hold that the Preamble is \(\textit{not}\) part of the Constitution?
| I. Arbitration of excepted matters | 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 |
| II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses | 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 |
| III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz | 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 |
| IV. Arbitrability of fraud | 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 |
| Offenses | Sections |
| (A) Voyeurism | (1) Section 77 |
| (B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman | (2) Section 79 |
| (C) Stalking | (3) Section 75 |
| (D) Sexual Harassment | (4) Section 78 |