Loading…
The amendment that capped the Council of Ministers at 15% of the House and barred defectors from ministerial and remunerative political posts.
The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 is the amendment that did two things at once: it put a ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers at the Union and in the states, and it plugged the biggest loophole in the anti-defection law. It inserted Articles 75(1A) and 75(1B) for the Union, Articles 164(1A) and 164(1B) for the states, and a new Article 361B on remunerative political posts, and it deleted Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, which had exempted a 'split' of one-third of a legislature party from disqualification. It received Presidential assent on 1 January 2004.
Type: LawArticle 75(1A) — the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha
Article 164(1A) — the total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of the state, with a floor of 12 ministers so that small states are not left with a skeletal ministry
Article 75(1B) and 164(1B) — a member disqualified for defection under Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule cannot be appointed a minister for the rest of that term, or until re-elected, whichever is earlier
Article 361B — such a disqualified member also cannot hold any remunerative political post, which closed the practice of rewarding defectors with corporation chairmanships and similar offices
Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule omitted — the 'one-third split' defence against defection was abolished; only a merger of two-thirds (Paragraph 4) now protects a group
Frequency: Very high — the anti-defection framework is among the most repeatedly tested areas of Indian polity, appearing in UPSC Prelims, Mains GS-II and almost every state PSC paper
The 52nd Amendment of 1985 inserted the Tenth Schedule to stop the 'Aya Ram Gaya Ram' defections of the 1960s and 1970s. But Paragraph 3 of that Schedule protected a defection if one-third of a legislature party broke away together. In practice this did not deter defection — it industrialised it, converting individual defections into engineered group splits and rewarding the defectors with ministerships. Three separate expert bodies recommended fixing it, and the 91st Amendment did so by simply deleting the escape route and adding a penalty on office.
52nd Amendment inserts the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), with the one-third split defence in Paragraph 3
Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms recommends limiting ministerial size and tightening defection law
170th Law Commission Report on Reform of Electoral Laws recommends deleting the split provision
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Venkatachaliah Commission) endorses the changes
Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003 receives Presidential assent
Article 75(1A)
Caps the Union Council of Ministers, including the PM, at 15% of Lok Sabha strength
Article 75(1B)
Bars a member disqualified for defection from being appointed a Union Minister
Article 164(1A)
Caps a state Council of Ministers, including the CM, at 15% of Assembly strength, minimum 12
Article 164(1B)
Bars a defector from being appointed a state Minister
Article 361B
Bars a defector from holding any remunerative political post — newly inserted
Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 3
Omitted — the one-third split defence against disqualification is gone
Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 4
Retained — a merger requires agreement of not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party
Before 2003 a jumbo ministry was a standard instrument of political management: a chief minister facing an unstable coalition could buy loyalty with office, and a one-third 'split' could legalise a mass defection afterwards. The 91st Amendment removed both tools in one stroke. Its limits are equally examinable. The Speaker still decides disqualification petitions with no constitutional deadline, and delays have allowed defectors to serve out whole terms; the Supreme Court flagged this in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) and suggested an independent tribunal instead. Critics also argue the law has made legislators subordinate to party whips on every vote, weakening Parliament's deliberative function — the core of the Mains debate.
91st Amendment, 2003 — assent on 1 January 2004; two themes, ministry size and defection
15% cap: Union ministers of Lok Sabha strength; state ministers of Assembly strength
States have a floor of 12 ministers including the Chief Minister; the Union has no floor
Defector cannot be a minister — Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B)
Defector cannot hold a remunerative political post — Article 361B, newly inserted
Tenth Schedule Paragraph 3 (one-third split) DELETED; Paragraph 4 (two-thirds merger) retained
Recommended by Dinesh Goswami Committee, 170th Law Commission Report and the NCRWC
The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot exceed 15% of the strength of the Lok Sabha; in a state, ministers including the Chief Minister cannot exceed 15% of the Legislative Assembly's strength.
Yes. Article 164(1A) fixes a floor of twelve ministers including the Chief Minister, so that small states such as Sikkim, Mizoram and Goa are not left with an unworkably small ministry.
It omitted Paragraph 3, which had protected a defection from disqualification if one-third of a legislature party split away together. Only Paragraph 4, on a merger backed by two-thirds of members, now survives.
It is a new Article inserted by the 91st Amendment barring a member disqualified for defection from holding any remunerative political post until the end of the term or re-election, whichever is earlier.
The 52nd Amendment of 1985 created the anti-defection law by inserting the Tenth Schedule. The 91st Amendment of 2003 tightened it by deleting the split loophole and adding penalties on holding office.