New Delhi: The growing phenomenon of elected representatives changing political allegiance after securing electoral victories has emerged as a significant challenge to the credibility of India’s representative democracy, with 111 sitting Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies switching political parties between 2022 and July 2026, according to an analysis released by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch.
The report, dated September 24, 2026, documents 26 Lok Sabha MPs, seven Rajya Sabha MPs and 78 legislators from state and Union Territory assemblies who changed political parties after being elected. The findings raise questions about the relationship between the electoral mandate, party loyalty and the accountability of elected representatives to voters who supported them under a particular political banner.
According to ADR’s analysis, the 111 cases represent approximately 2 per cent of the 4,876 sitting legislators and parliamentarians examined. However, the aggregate figure conceals substantial variations across states and political parties, with some regions witnessing concentrated movements that have altered the political balance and exposed weaknesses in mechanisms intended to discourage defections.
Nagaland, West Bengal account for nearly half the cases
Nagaland recorded the highest number of party changes, with 32 cases, accounting for 29 per cent of the national total. West Bengal followed with 20 cases, or 18 per cent, while Telangana reported nine and Goa eight. Punjab recorded eight cases, including six Rajya Sabha MPs and two assembly legislators.
Maharashtra accounted for six cases, followed by Meghalaya with six and Manipur with five. Arunachal Pradesh and Gujarat reported four cases each. The remaining cases were distributed across Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Sikkim and Uttar Pradesh.
Taken together, Nagaland and West Bengal accounted for 52 of the 111 cases, or nearly 47 per cent. This concentration suggests that the national pattern cannot be understood simply as a uniform increase in individual defections; party mergers, coordinated realignments and state-specific political developments have also played an important role.
The report, however, cautions that its list may not be exhaustive because systematically maintained and readily accessible official data on party changes are not available in a consolidated form.
Political realignments reshape party strength
The party-wise breakdown identifies the Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP) as the party from which the largest number of representatives moved, with 25 cases, followed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) with 20 and the Indian National Congress (INC) with 19. Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) accounted for nine cases, while the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) recorded seven each.
Together, NDPP, AITC and Congress accounted for 64 cases, representing 58 per cent of the total analysed by ADR.
The destinations of these representatives reveal another dimension of the political realignment. The Naga People’s Front (NPF) received 32 representatives, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 29 and the Nationalist Citizens Party of India 20, according to the report. These three parties accounted for 81 of the 111 cases.
The figures illustrate how the movement of elected representatives can significantly reshape party strength without necessarily requiring a fresh general election. They do not, by themselves, establish why individual legislators changed allegiance or whether any particular switch was motivated by personal gain.
West Bengal presents a striking case
West Bengal stands out because the report records 20 Lok Sabha MPs moving from the AITC to the Nationalist Citizens Party of India on June 14, 2026. The report’s observations place this development in the context of a major setback for the AITC in the 2026 Assembly elections and a subsequent internal split.
The scale of the parliamentary realignment raises questions about how political parties respond to electoral reverses and how the interests of elected representatives can diverge from the expectations of their voters. A party’s electoral support is built around its candidates, leadership, programme and political identity; a coordinated shift after an election can therefore alter the representation produced by that vote.
The ADR report characterises such large-scale realignments as a threat to the spirit of the electoral mandate. Nevertheless, its data establish the recorded changes in party affiliation, not the individual motives behind them. Those would require further examination of public statements, party records, resignation documents and other independently verifiable evidence.
Anti-defection law faces questions over enforcement
The analysis categorises the 111 cases into four groups: individual defections without resigning from the House; formal party mergers; resignations followed by bye-election victories; and disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution followed by electoral victories in bye-elections.
This distinction is crucial. A party merger or a legislator’s resignation followed by a fresh electoral contest is procedurally different from an individual switching allegiance while retaining the seat. Treating all cases as identical would obscure the legal and political circumstances behind each change.
The report identifies delays in adjudicating disqualification petitions and concerns about Speakers or Chairpersons acting as decision-makers under the anti-defection framework as factors that may weaken the deterrent effect of the law. It also points to the absence of comprehensive legislation governing political parties and insufficient transparency in their internal functioning.
ADR recommends amending the Tenth Schedule, introducing time-bound decisions on disqualification petitions, and considering restrictions on defectors holding public office before obtaining a fresh electoral mandate. It also advocates greater transparency in party finances, candidate selection and internal decision-making.
These are recommendations made by ADR and should not be mistaken for existing legal requirements in every instance.
The accountability question voters cannot ignore
The central issue emerging from the report is not merely the number of politicians who changed parties, but the extent to which voters can hold elected representatives accountable when their political allegiance changes after an election.
A representative may have legitimate reasons to leave a party, including ideological differences or a breakdown in political association. Yet, when large groups switch allegiance while retaining legislative positions, voters may find it difficult to determine whether the mandate they conferred remains meaningfully represented.
The report also exposes a data gap: the absence of a single, systematically maintained public record makes it harder for citizens to track party changes and assess their implications.
Ultimately, the 111 cases provide a measurable indication of post-election political mobility, but not a complete verdict on the motives or legality of every switch. The larger democratic test lies in ensuring that party changes are transparent, constitutional safeguards are enforced without undue delay, and elected representatives remain answerable to the electorate.
For a democracy in which voters exercise their authority through periodic elections, the credibility of the system depends not only on how votes are counted, but also on how faithfully the resulting mandate is respected.
At The Garhwa Post, we believe journalism is both a public trust and a civic responsibility. Our mission is to provide accurate, independent, and insightful reporting that informs citizens, encourages meaningful dialogue, and strengthens democratic values. Every story we publish is guided by the principles of truth, fairness, and accountability, with a steadfast commitment to serving the public interest and amplifying voices that matter.