Supreme Court Declines to Fast-Track Disqualification Pleas Against 10 Rebel TMC MLAs, Says No Reason to Doubt Speaker
The Supreme Court on September 28, 2026, dismissed a plea seeking an immediate direction to the West Bengal Assembly Speaker to decide disqualification petitions against 10 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLAs. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said there was no reason at this stage to doubt that the Speaker would act within the reasonable period prescribed by earlier Supreme Court rulings.
The petitions seeking disqualification were filed on July 8 by TMC MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay. They concern Ritabrata Banerjee, Firhad Hakim, Arup Roy, Sandipan Saha, Akhruzzaman Ansari, Shiuli Saha, Sabina Yasmin, Biplab Mitra, Javed Khan and Rathin Ghosh. The petition alleges that the legislators contested the Assembly election on TMC tickets but subsequently rebelled and joined a rival faction.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, in which it held that a Speaker exercising constitutional powers under the Tenth Schedule should decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, ordinarily three months. The Court said it expected the West Bengal Speaker to follow that established framework.
The three-month period in the present matter is due to expire in early October. Reports differ slightly on the precise date, with court-related reporting referring to October 8 or October 10 depending on the calculation and reporting of the filing date. The central point in the Court’s order was that the Speaker was expected to act within the timeframe flowing from the earlier Supreme Court ruling.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chattopadhyay, urged the Court to intervene, arguing that the petitions had already remained pending for nearly three months. He also argued that delays in deciding disqualification cases can have wider consequences when parallel disputes concerning political parties and their elected representatives are being considered by other constitutional bodies.
The bench nevertheless declined to impose a fresh deadline. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that courts should also reflect on their own record before directing other constitutional authorities to comply with strict timelines, noting that the judiciary itself does not always meet statutory deadlines for deciding cases.
The dispute is part of a wider internal conflict within the TMC following the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. The division has produced competing claims over the party’s leadership, the Leader of the Opposition position and the TMC’s name and electoral symbol. A separate dispute concerning recognition of the rival faction is also before the Election Commission and courts.
The Speaker’s decision on the disqualification petitions could therefore have consequences beyond the individual status of the 10 legislators. The Supreme Court, however, did not itself determine whether any of the MLAs should be disqualified. Its latest order instead left the constitutional decision with the Assembly Speaker while reiterating the expectation of timely action under existing judicial precedent.
The ruling also comes as the Supreme Court separately addresses the competing TMC factions’ dispute over the party name and “flower and grass” symbol. That proceeding involves the Election Commission and has its own timetable, making the coming weeks significant for several interconnected institutional disputes arising from the TMC split.
