Supreme Court Issues Notice On Abhishek Banerjee’s Plea For Expedited Decision On Disqualification Of 20 Rebel MPs
The TMC has maintained that the MPs were elected on its symbol and that their decision to align with another political formation amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of the party, attracting disqualification under the anti-defection law.
Supreme Court to hear plea by TMC leader against the alleged delay in deciding the disqualification proceedings initiated against the MPs.
The Supreme Court has issued notice in Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee's plea seeking an expeditious decision by Speaker Om Birla on petitions seeking disqualification of 20 rebel party MPs who have aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).
A CJI Surya Kant led bench was informed today by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Speaker has issued notices to the rebel MPs. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has accordingly issue notice to the other respondents.
Banerjee, in his plea, challenged the alleged delay in deciding the disqualification proceedings initiated against the MPs.
The TMC leader has sought directions for the speaker to decide the disqualification petitions in accordance with the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution. He had earlier submitted separate petitions against the 20 MPs and subsequently urged the speaker to expedite their disposal.
The dispute follows a rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party after 20 of its Lok Sabha MPs announced that they had joined or merged with the NCPI, a Tripura-based political outfit, and sought separate recognition in the House. The rebel MPs have subsequently been treated as an NCPI group in Parliament and have participated in NDA parliamentary activities.
In a related development, the Supreme Court, has also issued notice on a plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Lok Sabha MP Arvind Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs who sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Arvind Sawant has approached the Supreme Court challenging Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six MPs who unilaterally sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Challenging a circular issued by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat as ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse, Sawant, who is the parliamentary party leader of Shiv Sena (UBT), argued that the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign centred around Eknath Shinde's alleged usurpation of Balasaheb Thackeray's legacy through illegal means and unconstitutionally orchestrated defections.
Notably, the supreme court is also seized of a petition filed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal challenging the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, which permits legislators to avoid disqualification under the anti-defection law by claiming protection under the political party merger provision.
Sibal had moved a petition before the Supreme Court raising concerns over law against political defection is being rendered ineffective. Sibal mentioned his plea before a Bench leed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. "What is happening in this country? If this continues, 10th Schedule will become...There is a another plea listed," Sibal had said. Sibal had told court that the Parliament is being altered by these so called political mergers. The plea has challenged an interpretation of the Tenth Schedule which allows splinter groups to escape the anti-defection law by adopting the route of merger.
What is the Tenth Schedule
The 10th Schedule of Indian Constitution, added through the 52nd Amendment in 1985, is the Anti-Defection Law. This law was brought in to curb political defections, a growing problem at the time and to ensure elected representatives remained loyal to the party on whose ticket they won.
Originally, the Tenth Schedule recognised a 'split' in a legislature party if at least one-third members formed a new group or joined another party. But, after the 91st Amendment which came into force in 2004, the law recognises a 'merger' that requires at least two-third members of a legislature party to join another one or form a new one without falling foul of the anti-defection law.
Case Title: ABHISHEK BANERJEE Vs HONBLE SPEAKER LOK SABHA
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: August 25, 2026