Scope of Legal Fiction in Party Mergers
Context:
Recent political developments have sparked a complex legal debate regarding the interpretation of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule.
In April 2026, the Rajya Sabha Chairman accepted the merger of seven Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MPs with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Similar controversial rulings occurred in Goa, where the Bombay High Court upheld merger orders in 2022 and January 2025 based solely on the support of two-thirds of the legislators.
Understanding Legal Fiction:
In law, a "legal fiction" is an assumption treated as true for a limited, specific legal purpose.
Common examples include treating a registered company as a legal person capable of suing, or treating an adopted child as a natural child.
Legal scholar Henry Maine viewed legal fictions as a crucial tool for the law to adapt to changing societies.
However, jurist Lon Fuller warned that a legal fiction becomes dangerous if its artificial nature is forgotten and it is treated as an actual, substantive fact.
Indian Precedent:
The limits of legal fiction in Indian constitutional law were clearly delineated in the landmark 1955 Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs State of Bihar case, decided by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
The Tenth Schedule Controversy:
The Paragraph 4(2) Dispute:
The current controversies stem from the "deeming clause" in Paragraph 4(2) of the Tenth Schedule.
Recent judicial and parliamentary decisions have interpreted this clause to mean that if two-thirds of a party's legislators agree to merge, a legal merger is validated.
Legal experts argue that this interpretation is fundamentally flawed.
The deeming clause is designed only to verify a political party merger through legislative numbers.
It does not empower legislators to independently create a merger without explicit authorization from the original parent political party.
Expanding this legal fiction into a substantive grant of power for a breakaway faction violates the doctrinal limits established in the Bengal Immunity judgment, essentially treating an artificial assumption as an independent reality.