Let's carefully examine the statements given about the anti-defection law in India to determine which one is correct.

Understanding India's Anti-Defection Law

The anti-defection law in India is primarily contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985. It aims to prevent political defections that destabilize governments. The law lays down the circumstances under which an MP or MLA may be disqualified on grounds of defection.

Analyzing Statement 1: Nominated Legislators and Party Membership

Statement 1 says: "The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the house."

This statement is incorrect. According to the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule), a nominated member of a House can join a political party within six months from the date he takes his seat in the House. However, if a nominated member joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date he takes his seat, he shall be disqualified.

So, the law allows nominated legislators to join a party within the first six months, it prohibits them from joining *after* that period. Statement 1 gets this time frame and restriction wrong.

Analyzing Statement 2: Time Frame for Presiding Officer's Decision

Statement 2 says: "The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case."

This statement is correct. The anti-defection law itself (the Tenth Schedule) does not specify a fixed time period within which the Presiding Officer (the Speaker in the Lok Sabha or state assemblies, and the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha or state legislative councils) must make a decision on a defection case. This lack of a specified time frame has sometimes led to delays in deciding defection cases, which has been a subject of debate and judicial observations.

Conclusion on Anti-Defection Statements

Based on the analysis:

• Statement 1 is incorrect because nominated legislators can join a party within six months.
• Statement 2 is correct because the anti-defection law does not specify a time limit for the presiding officer's decision.

Therefore, only Statement 2 is correct regarding the anti-defection law in India.

Revision Table: Anti-Defection Law Key Aspects

Additional Information on Anti-defection Law and Presiding Officer

While the law doesn't provide a specific time frame, the Supreme Court has, in various judgments, emphasized the need for the Presiding Officer to decide defection cases within a reasonable period. For instance, in the 'Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors.' case (2020), the Supreme Court suggested that Parliament should amend the Constitution to provide for a time limit for deciding defection cases and suggested that, in the absence of such an amendment, the decision should ordinarily be given within a period of three months.

The decision of the Presiding Officer is subject to judicial review, although initially, the law tried to prevent this, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992).

The anti-defection law also includes provisions for exceptions, such as merger of parties (when two-thirds of the members of a legislative party agree to merge with another party).