Prima facie, Raghav Chadha’s claim of merger with BJP does not appear to be a valid defence under the Tenth Schedule. The anti-defection law under Paragraph 4 clearly requires two conditions for a valid merger: first, the original political party must merge with another party; and second, at least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party must agree to such merger. In this case, the core issue is that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), as a national political party, has not merged with the BJP. The claim is based only on a section of Rajya Sabha MPs, which is insufficient. The law distinguishes between the “original political party” and the “legislative party,” and both cannot be treated as the same. The Supreme Court in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary (2023) clarified that the legislative party cannot act independently of the political party. Allowing MPs or MLAs to claim merger without the parent party’s decision would defeat the purpose of the anti-defection law. However, some contrary views exist, such as certain High Court interpretations allowing merger based on legislative majority. Therefore, the issue remains legally unsettled. Overall, Chadha’s defence is weak and likely to be treated as defection unless the Supreme Court adopts a broader interpretation.