Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Flags Delay in Rebel TMC MPs’ Disqualification
The Supreme Court is examining why a decision about 20 rebel Trinamool Congress MPs has taken several months.
The MPs were elected on Trinamool Congress tickets and later announced a merger with another political group.
Abhishek Banerjee wants the MPs removed from Parliament under the anti-defection rules.
He says joining another group meant they had given up their original party membership.
The MPs say their move was a legal merger, not defection.
The Speaker sent them notices and gave them time to respond.
Their lawyers have promised to file the replies within four weeks.
The Supreme Court called the delay a warning sign and asked for a quick decision.
However, it did not set a compulsory deadline for the Speaker and will hear the matter again after six weeks.
The Supreme Court called the roughly three-month delay in deciding petitions against 20 rebel Trinamool Congress MPs a “red flag.”
The bench urged Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to act expeditiously but did not impose a binding deadline.
Abhishek Banerjee argues the MPs gave up Trinamool Congress membership by joining the Nationalist Citizens Party of India.
The rebel MPs say their move constituted a valid merger and have undertaken to file replies within four weeks.
The Speaker’s side says the MPs must receive an opportunity to respond and that no undue delay has occurred; the case will be reviewed after six weeks.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Abhishek Banerjee, the Speaker’s representatives, and 20 rebel Trinamool Congress MPs.
- What
- The court urged an expeditious decision on petitions seeking the MPs’ disqualification under the Constitution’s anti-defection provisions.
- When
- The petitions were filed on June 19; notices were issued in August; the MPs’ response deadline was extended to September 22; and the matter will be heard again after six weeks.
- Where
- The dispute concerns proceedings before the Lok Sabha Speaker and was heard by the Supreme Court.
- Why
- Abhishek Banerjee says the MPs voluntarily gave up Trinamool Congress membership, while the MPs contend that their move was a valid merger.
Petitioners’ Position
Speaker And Rebel MPs’ Position
Need for a quick decision
Petitioners’ Position
Abhishek Banerjee’s side says the disqualification petitions should be decided within a reasonable period, citing the Supreme Court’s preference for a three-month limit in an earlier case.
Speaker And Rebel MPs’ Position
The Speaker’s side opposes a court-fixed timeline, arguing that the Speaker is a constitutional authority and must follow the required process.
Whether there has been undue delay
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners say the proceedings have remained unresolved for months despite the importance of the issue and its effect on democratic and related proceedings.
Speaker And Rebel MPs’ Position
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says there has been no undue delay because notices were issued and the MPs still need an opportunity to respond.
Nature of the MPs’ move
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners contend that the MPs voluntarily gave up Trinamool Congress membership by joining another political formation, requiring disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
Speaker And Rebel MPs’ Position
The rebel MPs maintain that their move was a valid merger with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India and that they should be allowed to present their replies.
- MPs involved
- 20 of the Trinamool Congress’s 28 Lok Sabha MPs
- Petitioner
- Abhishek Banerjee
- Speaker
- Om Birla
- Constitutional provision
- The anti-defection provisions in the Tenth Schedule
- Court’s assessment
- The delay of about three months was described as a “red flag”
- Response status
- The MPs sought more time after the September 22 deadline and undertook to reply within four weeks
- Next hearing
- The matter will be considered again after six weeks
