The Supreme Court has disposed of a petition seeking the expeditious adjudication of disqualification pleas against ten rebel Trinamool Congress MLAs after recording its expectation that the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Speaker will endeavour to decide them by October 8, 2026.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday urged the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to take an appropriate decision by October 8 on petitions seeking the disqualification of ten MLAs associated with the Ritabrata Banerjee faction of the Trinamool Congress under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution [Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay v. Hon’ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly].
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana disposed of the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress legislator Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, who had sought an expeditious decision by the Speaker on the pending anti-defection proceedings.
The Court did not decide whether any of the ten legislators had incurred disqualification. Its intervention was confined to the delay in deciding the petitions and the constitutional expectation that proceedings under the Tenth Schedule be concluded within a reasonable period.
Three-month period ends on October 8
The disqualification petitions were filed before the Speaker on July 8, 2026. Noting that three months from that date would expire on October 8, the Bench expressed confidence that the Speaker was aware of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court governing the timely disposal of anti-defection proceedings.
The Bench recorded that it had every reason to believe the Speaker would “make all endeavour to take an appropriate decision within [the said period].”
The observation was made with reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, in which the Court held that, barring exceptional circumstances, disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months.
By disposing of the writ petition in these terms, the Court stopped short of issuing a coercive direction fixing the Speaker’s schedule. It nevertheless placed the constitutional authority on notice that the three-month period identified in Keisham Meghachandra Singh would expire on October 8.
Petitioner alleges a pattern of delay
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chattopadhyay, submitted that delays in deciding disqualification petitions had become part of a recurring pattern. He argued that a breakaway group could use the period of inaction to obtain recognition as the “real” political party before the anti-defection proceedings were concluded.
The submission arose against the backdrop of the internal split in the Trinamool Congress and parallel disputes over the party’s organisational control, name and election symbol. Those disputes are being considered separately and were not adjudicated in the present proceedings.
Disqualification petitions against ten MLAs
The petitions before the Speaker seek the disqualification of ten legislators aligned with the rebel faction for alleged defection. The MLAs named in the proceedings are Arup Roy, Ritabrata Banerjee, Firhad Hakim, Sandipan Saha, Seuli Saha, Akhruzzaman, Sabina Yeasmin, Rathin Ghosh, Biplab Mitra and Javed Ahmad Khan.
The allegations remain pending before the Speaker, who acts as the adjudicatory authority under the Tenth Schedule. The Supreme Court’s order does not amount to a finding that the MLAs have defected, nor does it determine the merits of the rival factions’ competing claims.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee also appeared for the petitioner.
The constitutional position under the Tenth Schedule
The Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the anti-defection law, provides for the disqualification of legislators on specified grounds, including voluntarily giving up membership of the political party on whose ticket they were elected and voting or abstaining contrary to the party’s direction in the legislature, subject to the exceptions recognised by the Constitution.
The Speaker is ordinarily the first authority to decide such questions. Although the Constitution does not prescribe an express deadline, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that prolonged delay can defeat the purpose of the anti-defection framework by allowing a legislator facing a disqualification plea to continue in office while the proceeding remains undecided.
In Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court said that Speakers should ordinarily decide disqualification petitions within three months unless exceptional circumstances justify a different timeline. Monday’s order applies that principle to the dates of the pending West Bengal proceedings without deciding their merits.
Why it matters
The order is significant because the timing of a Speaker’s decision can materially affect both legislative strength and related disputes over party control. If an anti-defection petition is left pending while rival factions seek recognition before constitutional and statutory authorities, delay itself can alter the practical balance of power even before the legal questions are resolved.
At the same time, the Court maintained the constitutional division of functions. It did not itself adjudicate the disqualification petitions or direct a particular outcome. Instead, it relied on the Speaker’s obligation to act in accordance with the three-month norm articulated in precedent. The order therefore combines judicial restraint on the merits with a clear expectation of timely institutional action.
The Speaker’s eventual decision will remain open to judicial review on recognised constitutional grounds. Until such a decision is made, the allegations against the ten MLAs remain unresolved.
Case Title: Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay v. Hon’ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1192/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Status: Writ petition disposed of; Speaker expected to endeavour to decide the pending disqualification petitions by October 8, 2026