SC notice to 20 rebel TMC MPs puts anti-defection law under spotlight

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.

Political battle reaches court

The TMC has welcomed the Supreme Court's intervention.

Senior party leader and MP Kalyan Banerjee, who appeared for Abhishek Banerjee, argued that the Speaker had failed to decide the matter despite the rebel MPs receiving separate seating arrangements in Parliament.

The party has portrayed the case as a test of the effective functioning of the anti-defection law and indicated that similar legal action could be pursued in relation to alleged defections in the state legislature.

The rebel camp has taken a different position.

Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar had earlier defended the Speaker's authority, saying, “The Speaker holds the authority to make decisions regarding Lok Sabha matters.”

“No one else can interfere in that matter,” she said, while also accusing Abhishek Banerjee of having “limited knowledge of parliamentary politics”.

The Supreme Court's intervention does not, however, amount to taking over the Speaker's jurisdiction. The immediate issue before the court is whether proceedings can remain pending indefinitely or whether they must be concluded within a reasonable period.

Anti-defection law in focus

The dispute highlights a longstanding tension in India's anti-defection framework.

The Tenth Schedule was introduced to prevent elected representatives from switching political allegiance for personal or political advantage. However, decisions on disqualification petitions are ordinarily made by the Speaker or Chairman of the concerned House.

This has periodically raised questions about potential delays, particularly when the presiding officer belongs to a political establishment that could be affected by the outcome.

In the present case, the 20 MPs represent a significant parliamentary bloc. Their break with the TMC has implications for the party's strength and organisation in the Lok Sabha, while recognition of the rebel group could strengthen its position within Parliament.

For the rebels and the NDA, the legal status of their political realignment is therefore significant both constitutionally and politically.

No ruling yet on disqualification

The Supreme Court has so far maintained a distinction between examining the delay in the proceedings and deciding the substantive allegation of defection.

The notices issued to the MPs give them an opportunity to respond to the petition. They do not constitute a finding that they have violated the Constitution or the Tenth Schedule.

The court will now consider the responses of the 20 MPs and assess whether the proceedings before the Speaker are progressing within a reasonable timeframe.

The next hearing could determine whether the Speaker will be required to follow a specific schedule for deciding the petitions.

At the heart of the case is therefore a broader question about India's anti-defection framework: while the Constitution gives the Speaker the authority to decide disqualification petitions, can that authority be exercised without an obligation to conclude such proceedings within a reasonable period?