The Supreme Court stopped short of directing the Lok Sabha Speaker, but made its expectation plain: disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law must be decided expeditiously, given the very nature of the dispute. Hearing a plea over the delay in deciding petitions against 20 Trinamool MPs who have sought to break away, the Court invoked the three-month norm it had earlier laid down, and asked the Solicitor General to return with a timeline.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has orally observed that the Lok Sabha Speaker is expected to take an expeditious decision on the petitions seeking the disqualification, under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, of 20 Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs who have sought to break away from the party [Abhishek Banerjee v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by TMC General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee seeking a time-bound decision by the Speaker on the disqualification petitions.
The submissions
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, for Banerjee, submitted that although the Speaker had issued notices to the MPs in August, they had not filed replies within the initial 14-day period; the time was extended until September 22, but the MPs had again sought an extension. Describing the situation as “ridiculous” in the context of Tenth Schedule proceedings, he submitted that a person, once disqualified, cannot function as an MP from that date, and asked whether the Speaker was following the Supreme Court’s observations on the expeditious disposal of anti-defection disputes.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in the matter, submitted that the Speaker had already issued notices, that the Speaker was performing a constitutional function acting as a Tribunal, and that the Court should not prescribe a time limit in the present circumstances; there had, he said, been no inordinate delay, the notices having been issued in August on petitions filed during the Monsoon session. “Please don’t take it otherwise, but does a constitutional authority need to be reminded?” the SG asked. Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Maninder Singh, for the MPs concerned, submitted that no occasion for judicial interference had arisen, that in cases such as Keisham Meghachandra Singh and Padi Kaushik Reddy the Court had stepped in only where there was a huge delay, and that they had sought only one extension and would file their replies within four weeks.
ALSO READ: “Can We Disqualify Shinde?”: Supreme Court’s Key Question In The Shiv Sena Case
The Court’s observations
The Bench declined to issue any imperative direction, but made its expectation of expedition clear. “We will expect anything which is required to be decided expeditiously, the very nature of the lis… that demands early adjudication,” the CJI observed. Justice Bagchi added that the Court was reminding the authority to ensure an expeditious resolution, keeping in mind the paramount importance of the Tenth Schedule and the decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, in which the Court had held that a Speaker should ordinarily decide a disqualification petition within three months.
Noting that the three-month period contemplated by that judgment had, on the facts, lapsed, the Bench said it would not put a constitutional authority “to ransom”, but would remind the Speaker of the earlier directions and expect the role to be performed expeditiously. “There is a presumption that there is no need to remind. But it’s rebuttable,” the CJI observed. The Bench repeatedly urged the Solicitor General to return with a proposed timeline within which the Speaker would decide; the SG maintained that he could not make any commitment, that the Court’s monitoring may not be justified, and urged the Court not to fix the Speaker’s schedule. The Court ultimately adjourned the hearing, recording the MPs’ statement that they would file replies within four weeks, without passing any directions.
The background
The dispute stems from a rift within the TMC’s parliamentary party, with 20 of its Lok Sabha MPs having sought to break away and align themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), and to be recognised as a separate group in the Lok Sabha. Banerjee’s petitions before the Speaker seek their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution, and his petition before the Supreme Court seeks a time-bound decision on those petitions. The competing contentions on whether the MPs’ conduct attracts disqualification, or falls within any exception, are yet to be adjudicated by the Speaker, and this report expresses no view on them.
Why it matters
The case sits at a familiar and difficult intersection of constitutional law: the tension between the Speaker’s role as the adjudicating authority under the Tenth Schedule and the Supreme Court’s insistence that such adjudication not be indefinitely delayed. In Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court held that a Speaker should decide a disqualification petition within a reasonable period, ordinarily three months, precisely because a prolonged failure to decide can allow an allegedly disqualified member to continue to sit and vote, defeating the object of the anti-defection law. The friction on display, the Court’s reluctance to command a constitutional authority set against its concern that delay not frustrate the Tenth Schedule, is the recurring dilemma of these cases.
The Court’s chosen course, to remind rather than direct, reflects that balance. It stopped short of fixing a deadline or monitoring the Speaker, deferring to the Speaker’s constitutional function, while making unmistakably clear that it expects an expeditious decision and that the presumption of good-faith promptness, though it exists, is rebuttable. The request to the Solicitor General to propose a timeline is a characteristic middle path: it seeks to secure a time-bound resolution through the executive’s cooperation rather than by judicial fiat.
Nothing has been decided, either on the timeline or on the merits of the disqualification. The Speaker is yet to rule on the petitions, the MPs are yet to file their replies, and the Supreme Court has passed no direction, adjourning the matter on the MPs’ undertaking to respond within four weeks. What the underlying petitions will yield, whether the 20 MPs are disqualified, or their conduct is found to fall outside the mischief of the Tenth Schedule, remains for the Speaker to determine, subject to such judicial review as the law permits.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others [W.P.(C) No. 1033/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Maninder Singh for the MPs concerned.
Status: Oral observations that the Speaker is expected to decide expeditiously; no directions passed. Solicitor General asked to propose a timeline; MPs to file replies within four weeks. Merits of the disqualification undecided.