Prior to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker’s enquiry as to the existence of a split within a political party was limited to a prima facie determination for deciding the disqualification proceedings. As a result of the deletion of Paragraph 3, the authority of the Speaker to form even a prima facie opinion regarding a split within a political party has been removed. Upon the deletion of Paragraph 3, the only defence for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are that of a merge under Paragraph 4. The Election Commission of India is the sole authority empowered to decide disputes between rival factions of a political party according to the provisions of the Symbols Order.
[Extracted from Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)]
Which of the following judgments that ruled, which a Speaker stands disabled to act under the Tenth Schedule to curb defection if a notice of intention to move a resolution for their removal is issued, was referred to a seven-judge bench by the five-judge bench in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra?
- Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
- Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly
- Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The case of Nabam Rebia Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh
Legislative Assembly was referred for reconsideration to a seven-judge bench in Subhash Desai for determining the Speaker’s role under the Tenth Schedule during removal proceedings.
The correct option is (A): Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Srinivasan, J. in Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand held that ‘Political Party’ cannot be read as ‘Legislature Party’. Which among the following was not a reason provided by the Hon’ble Judge?
- The phrase ‘Political Party’ in Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the tenth schedule cannot be interpreted to mean ‘Legislative Party’ while the same phrase in Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule retains its original meaning.
- Such an interpretation would render explanation (a) to Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule otiose because a legislature party cannot set up a person as a candidate for election
- Disqualification from membership of the assembly is a serious consequence. Such a consequence can only ensue from voting contrary to the direction of the political party
- In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, it was held that to balance the competing considerations of the anti-defection law and intra-party dissent, a direction to vote (or abstain from voting) can only be given if the vote would alter the status of the government formed or if it is on a policy on which the political party that set up the candidate went to polls on. Only the political party and not the legislature party can issue directions concerning issues of this nature
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The ruling emphasized that only the political party has the authority to issue binding
directions under the anti-defection law, not the legislative party. Option (D) does not address
this distinction directly.
The correct option is (D): In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, it was held that to balance the competing considerations of the anti-defection law and intra-party dissent, a direction to vote (or abstain from voting) can only be given if the vote would alter the status of the government formed or if it is on a policy on which the political party that set up the candidate went to polls on. Only the political party and not the legislature party can issue directions concerning issues of this nature
Which of the following was not challenged by the petitioners in the case of Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra?
- Disqualification of thirty-four MLAs
- Swearing in Mr. Ekanth Shinde as the Chief Minister
- Election of the Speaker by the House, which included the thirty-four MLAs who are facing disqualification notices
- Legality of the trust vote dated July 4, 2022
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The petitioners did not challenge the invitation extended to the thirty-four MLAs.
They contested other procedural and legal aspects related to the formation and conduct of the
government.
The correct option is (A): Disqualification of thirty-four MLAs
A violation of the anti-defection law will not result in a member of the House being:
- Disqualified from the House
- Disqualified from holding any election campaign for the duration of the period commencing from the date of their disqualification till the date on which the term of their office as a member of the House would expire or till the date on which they contest election to a House and are declared elected, whichever is later
- Disqualified from holding any remunerative political post for the duration of the period commencing from the date of their disqualification till the date on which the term of their office as a member of the House would expire or till the date on which they contest election to a House and are declared elected, whichever is earlier.
- Disqualified from being appointed as a Minister for the duration of the period commencing from the date of their disqualification till the date on which the term of their office as a member of the House would expire or till the date on which they contest election to a House and are declared elected, whichever is earlier
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Under the anti-defection law, disqualification generally affects a member’s ability
to hold political office and certain other roles, but it does not disqualify them from participat-
ing in election campaigns.
The correct option is (B): Disqualified from holding any election campaign for the duration of the period commencing from the date of their disqualification till the date on which the term of their office as a member of the House would expire or till the date on which they contest election to a House and are declared elected, whichever is later
The Tenth Schedule specifies five defense that a member may take recourse to shield themselves from the consequences of the anti-defection law. Which among the following is not a defense?
- In cases where the original political party of a member is found to have merged with another political party under Paragraph 4(1)(a), members of the original political party are protected from being disqualified if they have not accepted such merger and have opted to function as a separate group
- Members who have been elected to the office of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker (or the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman as the case may be) in Parliament or in the Legislative Assemblies of States are exempted from disqualification under the Tenth Schedule if they voluntarily give up the membership of their political party by reason of their election to such office and do not re-join the political party or become a member of another political party so long as they continue to hold such office. Further, they are not disqualified if they re-join the political party which they gave up membership of, after ceasing to hold office
- Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of split. Where a member of a House makes a claim that he and any other members of his legislature party constitute the group representing a faction, which has arisen as a result of a split in his original political party and such group consists of not less than one-third of the members of such legislature party
- A member is protected from being disqualified if the political party to which they belong has condoned their actions in voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the directions issued by such political party, within fifteen days from such voting or abstention
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The provision for protection against disqualification due to splits was removed by
the 91st Amendment to the Constitution, so it no longer serves as a defense under the Tenth
Schedule.
The correct option is (C): Disqualification on ground of defection not to apply in case of split. Where a member of a House makes a claim that he and any other members of his legislature party constitute the group representing a faction, which has arisen as a result of a split in his original political party and such group consists of not less than one-third of the members of such legislature party
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
- Match the following:
I. Chief Election Commissioner A. Elected by Rajya Sabha
II. Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha B. Elected by Members of Lok Sabha
III. Speaker of Lok Sabha C. Appointed by the President
IV. Chairman of Public Accounts Committee D. Appointed by the Speaker of Lok Sabha
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which of the following cases, the concept of curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- Consider the following Assertion [A] and Reasoning [R]:
[A] The Supreme Court of India ordinarily does not interfere with order of acquittal passed by the High Court in the favor of accused.
[R] The power vested in the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is plenary, hence the Court itself set the limits by permitting invocation of this power in very exceptional circumstances.
Choose the most suitable answer from the below given options.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which of the following cases has the Supreme Court of India directed the Central Government to constitute a National Tribunals Commission (NTC), an independent body to supervise the functioning of tribunals in India?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which of the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India held that the principle of res judicata applies to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution if a similar petition, on the same cause of action, has already been dismissed on merits by a High Court under Article 226?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts
Today, in the year 2025, we have been experiencing the drastic consequences of large scale destruction of environment on human lives in the capital city of our country and in many other cities. At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing. Therefore, coming out with measures such as the 2021 Official Memorandum is violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment. It also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should comedown heavily on such attempts. As stated earlier, the 2021 OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment. Apart from violation of Article 21, such action is completely arbitrary which is violative article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
(Extracted with edits from Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law