The Supreme Court has ruled that there are no legal grounds to annul the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which introduces anti-defection provisions barring members of the People’s Majlis from switching political parties.

The court further held that the anti-defection amendment applies to actions taken by sitting MPs after its ratification.

The ruling was delivered on Wednesday by Chief Justice Uz Abdul Ghanee Mohamed during the hearing of a case filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, who sought to have the amendment invalidated.

The Chief Justice referred to the basic structure doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of India, noting that while the Maldivian Constitution contains principles that may be considered part of its foundational framework, there is no requirement for the Maldives to adopt the doctrine in the same form.

He stated that the Constitution already provides detailed procedures for amendments, along with specific safeguards for certain provisions.

Responding to claims that anti-defection rules are unique to parliamentary systems, the Chief Justice said such provisions are also implemented in presidential systems, including Nigeria and Kenya. He added that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to argue that such a rule cannot be applied in a system like that of the Maldives.

The judgment also referenced a prior Supreme Court decision on anti-defection legislation, which found that such laws do not violate fundamental rights. The Chief Justice said no legal basis had been presented to depart from that position.

He further dismissed arguments that a provision leading to the loss of an MP’s seat would infringe constitutional rights and therefore require a public referendum, stating that this claim does not carry sufficient legal weight.

In addition, the Chief Justice noted that the amendment was passed with a strong majority in the People’s Majlis and said anti-defection provisions are widely used in democratic systems to safeguard the integrity of elected representatives and reinforce accountability to the electorate.

He added that the amendment to Article 73 should be viewed as a constitutional measure to protect the mandate granted by voters.

The court concluded that there is no legal basis to determine the amendment to be unconstitutional.