The Supreme Court has issued notices to 20 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs on a plea seeking an early decision on disqualification petitions filed against them, bringing a political dispute within the party into a wider constitutional debate over the functioning of the anti-defection law.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the MPs after hearing a petition filed by TMC general secretary and Lok Sabha leader Abhishek Banerjee.
The matter concerns petitions pending before Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking disqualification of the 20 MPs. The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, held that the MPs have violated the anti-defection law or that they are liable to be disqualified.
The next hearing is expected to take place in about two weeks.
Among the MPs facing the proceedings are prominent TMC leaders including Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar and Satabdi Roy.
Dispute over political switch
The controversy arose after the 20 MPs, elected to the Lok Sabha on TMC tickets, broke with the party and aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI) while also extending support to the NDA.
The rebel MPs have sought recognition as a separate group in the Lok Sabha and have been provided separate seating arrangements.
TMC, however, has challenged their political realignment, arguing that switching allegiance after being elected on the party’s symbol amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of the party and attracts the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law.
The MPs are expected to argue that their political realignment is legally permissible. A key question could be whether their move can be treated as a legitimate merger or political association rather than defection.
TMC challenges delay
Banerjee’s plea focuses not only on the alleged defection but also on the delay in deciding the disqualification petitions.
The TMC leader had earlier approached the Speaker and subsequently sent reminders seeking action. According to the petition, Banerjee met Birla on August 12 after sending another communication on July 27.
With no final decision forthcoming, he approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking judicial intervention for an expeditious decision.
The hearing also clarified that the Speaker has already initiated proceedings against the MPs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Lok Sabha authorities, told the court that notices had already been issued to the 20 MPs on the disqualification petitions filed by TMC.
The Supreme Court therefore did not issue a separate notice to the Speaker.
Court stresses time-bound proceedings
The court’s observations during the hearing placed particular emphasis on the question of delay.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “It is not a question of issuing notices; but of concluding the proceedings within a time frame.”
He also said the court’s objective was “to ensure that it is done in a timely manner”.
The observations shift the focus beyond the immediate political dispute to a broader constitutional question: how long can a Speaker take to decide a disqualification petition when the Constitution entrusts that authority to the House?
The Supreme Court has not yet determined whether the 20 MPs actually attracted disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
About the Author
