AAP’s split and the deepening crisis of anti-defection law

By Vikas Meshram* 

On April 24, seven out of ten Rajya Sabha members of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) announced their merger into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan accepted this claim, pushing the BJP’s standalone strength in the Upper House to 113. For the first time, the National Democratic Alliance crossed the majority mark in the Rajya Sabha. This event is not merely the story of an internal split within one party; it simultaneously sheds light on the true nature of AAP, the opportunism of defecting leaders, the BJP’s political strategies, and the ongoing weakening of the anti-defection law.

Among the seven members who split away, Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, and Swati Maliwal were the most recognizable faces of AAP. Through them, the party had a distinct identity that was not limited solely to Arvind Kejriwal’s individual personality. As for the remaining four members, it can be said that their joining AAP was just as opportunistic as their departure to the BJP—there were no principles when they came, and there are none when they leave.

Kejriwal used to mock the Congress by saying that its MLAs cross over to the BJP and that this reflects the party’s moral degradation. Now, the very same thing has happened with AAP. This incident has exposed the fact that the party’s true character was always about relentlessly striking at the system in pursuit of power. The merger of its Rajya Sabha members into the BJP is the culmination of the very opportunism on which AAP grew, and for which India’s democratic institutions have paid a heavy price.

Yet, this does not mean that the blatantly incorrect interpretation of the Tenth Schedule should be overlooked. The Tenth Schedule states that for the merger of one party into another, the consent of two-thirds of that party’s legislative members is required. In 2023, the Supreme Court clearly stated that a legislative group and a political party are two separate entities—one cannot be considered the representative of the other. Despite this, arguing that “two-thirds of a party’s legislative members can join another party without the risk of disqualification” is a completely arbitrary interpretation of the law. AAP has taken this matter to the Supreme Court, but the bitter truth is that the Court’s past interventions in similar cases have not been very reassuring. Large-scale defections have brought down elected governments, the Tenth Schedule has been rendered ineffective time and again, and despite this open betrayal of the public mandate, no firm deterrent has been imposed.

With barely ten months remaining until the Punjab Assembly elections, this split is extremely damaging for AAP. Signs of this rupture were visible when, after Raghav Chadha was removed from the post of deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha, he openly took a stance against Arvind Kejriwal. Notably, Ashok Mittal, who replaced Chadha as deputy leader, ultimately followed the same path and joined the BJP—a contradiction that speaks volumes. The rebel MPs alleged that AAP is now prioritizing personal interests over public issues and that Kejriwal is running the Punjab government while sitting in Delhi. Kejriwal, however, accused these MPs of betraying the people of Punjab and alleged that the BJP had hatched a conspiracy to destroy his party.

After the humiliating defeat in the Delhi Assembly elections at the hands of the BJP last year, this is the biggest blow for AAP. The BJP is attempting to strengthen its roots in Punjab, and the split in AAP’s Rajya Sabha group appears to be part of that strategy. Most of the seven members were not popular public figures, but they were economically well-off. This raises an important question: when Kejriwal allotted Rajya Sabha tickets, did he apply an ideological test, or did he prioritize financial capability? When the basis of selection is economic, the decisions of those members are also governed by the arithmetic of profit and loss. It is also alleged that central investigative agencies had taken action against the businesses of some of these MPs, after which seeking refuge under the ruling alliance may have seemed safer.

This incident is not limited to AAP alone. Keeping its constituent parties together will be a major challenge for the INDIA alliance in the coming period. In Indian democracy, defection is not merely a moral question; it is also one of institutional weakness. As long as the Tenth Schedule is interpreted for convenience, constitutional authorities deliver politically motivated decisions, and courts fail to intervene in time, such incidents will continue. What AAP’s MPs did is reprehensible—but at the same time, one cannot ignore the BJP’s tactics, the role of the Chairman, and the alleged use of investigative agencies. If the trust of the ordinary voter is not to become an inevitable casualty of Indian politics, both the impartial enforcement of the law and the genuine integrity of institutions are essential.

---

*Independent writer