The Supreme Court on Thursday disposed of a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) legislator Sohandeb Chattopadhyay seeking directions for the expeditious adjudication of disqualification proceedings pending against ten rebel party legislators. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain the plea directly, holding that the appropriate recourse lay before the Calcutta High Court.
The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the High Court. It further requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to place the matter before a Division Bench for expeditious consideration and disposal. The disqualification petitions were filed against ten Members of the Legislative Assembly alleged to have defected after contesting the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections on TMC tickets. The respondents include Ritabrata Banerjee, currently recognised as the Leader of Opposition, Arup Roy, Firhad Hakim, Sandipan Saha, Akhruzzaman Ansari, Shiuli Saha, Sabina Yasmin, Biplab Mitra, Javed Khan, and Rathin Ghosh.
Why Did The Supreme Court Decline To Entertain The Petition Directly?
The bench observed that the appropriate remedy at this stage was to approach the Calcutta High Court. It disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh plea before the High Court and requested the Chief Justice to constitute a Division Bench for expeditious adjudication, declining to exercise its original jurisdiction over the matter.
The petition challenged orders dated October 8 passed by the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly issuing notices in the disqualification proceedings. Chattopadhyay submitted that the disqualification petitions were filed on July 8 and nearly five months had elapsed without a decision. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the Supreme Court, in an earlier order, had requested the Speaker to decide the petitions by October 8, referencing the three-month timeline laid down in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule should ordinarily be decided within three months and expressed confidence that the Speaker would endeavour to comply with that timeframe.
Background Of The Disqualification Proceedings
The proceedings originate from a split in the Trinamool Congress following the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, in which the Bharatiya Janata Party secured a majority. A breakaway faction led by Ritabrata Banerjee has claimed the support of 58 legislators and asserted that it represents the legitimate TMC. The Speaker recognised Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition in the Assembly. Chattopadhyay, nominated by the faction led by Mamata Banerjee, challenged that decision before the Calcutta High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court declined to grant interim relief against Banerjee's appointment, allowing him to continue as Leader of Opposition pending final adjudication.
On September 28, the Supreme Court disposed of an earlier petition by Chattopadhyay, urging the West Bengal Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions by October 8. That bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, noted that the petitions were filed on July 8 and the three-month period contemplated in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh judgment would expire on October 8.
Comparative Timeline Of Proceedings
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 8 | Disqualification petitions filed against 10 rebel MLAs |
| September 28 | Supreme Court urges Speaker to decide pleas by October 8 |
| October 8 | Speaker issues notices in disqualification proceedings |
| Date of Current Order | Supreme Court disposes of fresh petition, directs approach to Calcutta High Court |
The current disposal by the Supreme Court effectively remits the question of expeditious adjudication to the Calcutta High Court, which is now expected to monitor the progress of the disqualification proceedings before the Speaker. The court's request to the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to a Division Bench underscores the institutional preference for the constitutional court of the state to supervise timeline compliance in Tenth Schedule proceedings at this stage.