SC to Hear Abhishek Banerjee's Plea for Time-bound Decision on Rebel TMC MPs
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by senior Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee seeking a time-bound decision on the disqualification of 20 rebel party MPs under the anti-defection law. The court has not yet announced a date for the hearing.
The 20 MPs had earlier merged with the NCPI, a political party. The TMC has argued that this merger amounts to voluntarily giving up party membership, which is a ground for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The party has submitted complaints to the Lok Sabha Speaker, but no decision has been taken so far.
Banerjee, who is a TMC MP and the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has moved the Supreme Court to direct the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions within a specific period. His plea does not ask the court to disqualify the rebel MPs, but seeks to ensure that the Speaker acts without further delay.
The anti-defection law, introduced by the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1985, provides for the disqualification of legislators who defect from their party. However, there is an exception for mergers: if at least two-thirds of a party's legislators agree to merge with another party, the merger is considered valid and no disqualification is incurred. In this case, only 20 of the TMC's MPs have aligned with the NCPI, which is less than the required threshold for a valid merger.
The TMC contends that the rebel MPs' act constitutes defection, as they did not have the support of two-thirds of the party's parliamentary party. The rebel MPs, on the other hand, have maintained that their political realignment was legitimate and in accordance with the law.
Legal observers note that the Supreme Court's decision to entertain this plea is significant, as anti-defection cases often languish before Speakers for prolonged periods. The court has, in previous instances, emphasised the need for timely decisions on disqualification matters. It has held that Speakers must decide such petitions within a reasonable period.
The case raises important questions about the jurisdiction of the judiciary in the anti-defection process. While the Constitution vests the power to decide on disqualification with the Speaker, the Supreme Court has the authority to intervene in cases where the Speaker's inaction or decision is challenged. The present plea is aimed at ensuring that the Speaker fulfils his constitutional duty in a timely manner.
This development takes place against the backdrop of political tensions within the TMC. The defection of 20 MPs is a setback for the party, which is a prominent opposition group in the Lok Sabha. A final ruling on the matter could alter the party's strength in the House and have broader political implications.
The petitioner has requested the court to issue a specific timeline for the Speaker to complete the disqualification process. The Supreme Court will now examine the plea and may issue notices to the Speaker, the rebel MPs, and other parties involved. The case is being watched closely as it could have implications for pending anti-defection matters across the country.
