Back
Abhishek Banerjee moves against Speaker's delay in disqualifying 20 rebel TMC MPs
The political battle over the loyalty of 20 MPs has now reached the , with party general secretary Abhishek Banerjee filing a writ petition challenging the by Speaker Om Birla in deciding petitions under the . The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has listed the matter for hearing on , signaling the apex court’s readiness to examine yet another contentious Speaker’s inaction on defection-related complaints.
The move comes after the 20 MPs—who were elected on the TMC symbol—broke away from the party and aligned with the , a Tripura-based political outfit, in June this year. They subsequently sought recognition as a separate group in the and have been participating in parliamentary activities. The TMC maintains that their actions constitute “” of the party, attracting under the .
Background of the Rebellion
The rebellion erupted shortly after the TMC led by Mamata Banerjee lost the assembly elections in West Bengal. Deep fissures within the parliamentary party became public when the 20 MPs announced they had either joined or merged with the NCPI. The rebel camp claimed the support of more than two-thirds of TMC’s MPs and invoked , which provides that a is deemed to have taken place if not less than two-thirds of the members of a party in the House agree to merge with another political party.
However, the TMC faction led by Mamata Banerjee contends that the mere arithmetic of numbers does not satisfy the requirements of a lawful . The party argues that the rebel MPs, by joining a party with a distinct ideology and symbol, have voluntarily abandoned their allegiance to the TMC. “The MPs were elected on the party’s symbol, and their subsequent decision to join another political formation attracts the provisions of the ,” the petition states. Banerjee had submitted separate petitions before Speaker Om Birla as early as June, followed by multiple reminders and a personal meeting on .
The Delay and Alleged Inaction
Despite the repeated pleas, the Speaker has not taken a final decision on the petitions. Instead, the rebel MPs were allotted separate seating arrangements in the during the Monsoon Session—a move the TMC says acknowledges their split status without the required legal determination. According to the petition, the Speaker has not formally recognized the new group, yet the MPs continue to identify themselves as TMC members inside Parliament while claiming allegiance to NCPI outside.
The TMC has also pointed out that the Speaker’s failure to act within a frustrates the purpose of the , which was designed to curb political defections by ensuring swift . The petition relies heavily on the ’s judgment in , where a constitution bench held that Speakers must decide petitions “within a reasonable period, ordinarily not exceeding three to four months.” The current delay—now over two months since the first petition—is argued to be in clear violation of that directive.
Legal Arguments and the Conundrum
The core legal dispute centers on the interpretation of . The rebel MPs assert that their move constitutes a valid , as they represent two-thirds of the TMC’s strength. However, the TMC counters that a requires the prior approval or participation of the original party’s organizational leadership—something that is absent here. Moreover, the NCPI, being a regional party with no prior presence in West Bengal, cannot be said to be a “merging party” in the traditional sense.
The petition also raises a broader constitutional issue: can a splinter group of legislators escape simply by claiming a with another party, even if that party is unrelated to the original political formation? This very question is already before the in a separate petition filed by senior advocate as a party-in-person. Sibal’s challenge argues that the current legal framework under Paragraph 4 enables “” designed to defeat the object of the . The TMC’s case now brings this issue into sharper focus, as the Speaker’s inaction may indirectly validate such a maneuver.
The ’s Role and Parallel Proceedings
The apex court is also hearing a similar plea by the faction, challenging the Speaker’s approval of the of six of its MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. That matter is before a different bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha. The TMC petition is now likely to be mentioned along with that case, potentially leading to a consolidated hearing on the scope of the Speaker’s powers and the of his decisions under the .
Abhishek Banerjee’s petition names the Speaker, the , and the 20 rebel MPs as respondents. The list includes prominent former TMC parliamentarians such as Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, and Yusuf Pathan, among others. The petitioner has sought a direction from the apex court to compel the Speaker to decide the petitions within a time-bound period, failing which the court may itself declare the MPs disqualified.
Implications for Parliamentary Democracy
The delay in deciding petitions has long been a thorny issue in Indian parliamentary democracy. The Tenth Schedule was inserted in 1985 to curb the menace of defections, but its effectiveness has been undermined by Speakers who often sit on complaints for months or years. The , through a series of judgments, has attempted to enforce accountability by holding that Speakers are bound to act within a .
If the apex court grants relief to Banerjee, it could send a strong message to presiding officers across legislatures that inordinate delays will not be tolerated. Conversely, if the court remains reluctant to interfere with the Speaker’s domain, it may embolden further defections and delays. The TMC’s case also highlights the tension between the political executive (the Speaker is a member of the ruling party) and the need for impartial adjudication of disputes.
Conclusion
As the hearing approaches, the political and legal stakes are high. For the TMC, a favourable ruling could restore its parliamentary strength and deal a blow to the rebel faction. For the rebel MPs, the outcome could determine their political futures and the credibility of the route as a shield against . More broadly, the ’s intervention—or its refusal to intervene—will shape the contours of the for years to come.
Abhishek Banerjee’s move underscores the growing willingness of political parties to bypass the Speaker and directly seek judicial remedies when faced with administrative inaction. Whether the court will set a precedent forcing Speakers to adhere to strict timelines, or will defer to their discretionary powers, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the battle over the 20 rebel TMC MPs is no longer just a legislative wrangle—it is now a constitutional test of the anti-defection regime itself.
