LANDMARK CASE

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law

At a glance

Citation: 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Constitutional law
In one line: The Tenth Schedule was upheld, but the Speaker acts as a tribunal whose decision is subject to judicial review.

1 Facts

The validity of the Tenth Schedule (anti defection law) was challenged.

2 Issue

Is the anti defection law valid, and can the Speaker's decision be reviewed?

3 What the court decided

The Tenth Schedule was upheld, but the Speaker acts as a tribunal whose decision is subject to judicial review.

4 Why it matters

It governs defection disputes to this day.

5 Think about it

Is the Speaker the right authority to decide defection cases?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Constitutional law

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Kishen Pattnayak v. State of Orissa →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.