Supreme Court Issues Notice to 20 Rebel Trinamool Congress MPs as Abhishek Banerjee Challenges Delay in Disqualification Proceedings
The Supreme Court has intervened in a major political and constitutional standoff in Parliament, seeking formal responses from 20 rebel Trinamool Congress lawmakers on a petition challenging prolonged delays in deciding disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law. The legal challenge, spearheaded by the party's national general secretary and parliamentary leader Abhishek Banerjee, asks the highest court to direct Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to conclude disqualification hearings within a strict and expedited time frame. The judicial development marks a critical turn in the factional feud that has fractured the regional party's parliamentary strength following recent assembly election setbacks in West Bengal.
The high-stakes hearing took place before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. While the petition initially sought formal notices to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stepped in on behalf of the Speaker and the Lok Sabha Secretariat to inform the bench that preliminary notices had already been dispatched to the 20 parliamentarians. The top court underscored that the primary constitutional concern was not merely the formal dispatch of inquiries, but ensuring that disqualification proceedings reach a definitive and timely conclusion rather than remaining unresolved indefinitely.
The constitutional dispute began earlier in the year when a breakaway faction comprising 20 Lok Sabha parliamentarians broke ranks with party supremo Mamata Banerjee. Led by senior lawmaker Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, the dissident group announced an alignment with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India, a relatively lesser-known political formation, and petitioned parliamentary authorities to grant them official recognition as an independent bloc. During subsequent legislative sessions, parliamentary administrators allotted separate seating arrangements to the faction, intensifying demands from the parent party for immediate punitive measures under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The list of lawmakers facing disqualification petitions includes several prominent parliamentarians, such as Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, Rachana Banerjee, Jagadish Chandra Barma Basunia, Partha Bhowmick, Arup Chakraborty, Deepak Dev Adhikari, Sayani Ghosh, Bapi Haldar, Mohammad Abu Taher Khan, Kalipada Saren Kherwal, Asit Kumar Mal, and June Maliah. The Trinamool Congress leadership argues that these members were elected directly under the party's official election symbol and that voluntarily abandoning party discipline to function as a separate political entity directly violates constitutional provisions against political defection.
The core legal argument presented by the party centers on the constitutional interpretation of political party mergers. Under the Tenth Schedule, protection from disqualification during a political realignment requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the entire political party, rather than a breakaway segment of the legislative wing alone. Party advocates argued before the bench that allowing splinter factions to seek shelter under disputed mergers while delaying disqualification verdicts defeats the entire purpose of the Fifty-Second Constitutional Amendment, which was enacted to prevent opportunistic political defections and safeguard parliamentary stability.
The parliamentary administration has moved quickly following the Supreme Court hearing, with the Lok Sabha Secretariat issuing formal directives requiring all 20 parliamentarians to submit detailed written replies to the disqualification petitions within seven days. The responses will be placed directly before the Speaker for official evaluation. However, the rebel faction maintains that their collective numbers exceed the required two-thirds threshold of the parliamentary party, asserting that their organizational realignment represents a legitimate merger recognized under legislative procedure.
Legal scholars and constitutional experts observe that the Supreme Court's scrutiny reflects growing judicial impatience with indefinite delays in adjudicating anti-defection petitions across state legislatures and Parliament. In multiple previous landmark rulings, constitutional benches have affirmed that presiding officers acting as tribunals under the Tenth Schedule are expected to deliver verdicts within a reasonable period, typically within three months. As the rebel lawmakers prepare their legal defenses, the apex court's intervention is poised to establish vital benchmarks for enforcing accountability and constitutional discipline within legislative bodies.