The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25, 2026) agreed to hear a plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee contending that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was delaying disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law against 20 rebel party MPs who have aligned themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the Secretary General, Lok Sabha, and the MPs in question. Mr. Banerjee has sought a time-bound decision on the disqualification of the 20 rebel MPs. The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, had initially considered issuing a notice to the Speaker, who is arraigned as the first respondent in the petition.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, argued that there was no need to issue a formal notice to the Speaker, who is a high Constitutional authority. Justice Bagchi indicated that the Speaker functions as a tribunal while hearing petitions seeking disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, and the court must respect the office while ensuring proceedings are completed within a reasonable timeframe.

Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing the TMC leader, emphasized that formal notices were required as multiple other respondents were arraigned in the petition. Consequently, the apex court proceeded to issue notices to the Secretary General and the 20 rebel MPs, including high-profile names like Kakori Ghosh Dastidar, Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, and former cricketer Yusuf Pathan.

The dispute follows a major rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party after 20 of its Lok Sabha MPs announced that they had joined or merged with the NCPI, a Tripura-based political outfit, and sought separate recognition in the House. The rebel MPs have subsequently been treated as an NCPI group in Parliament and have participated in National Democratic Alliance (NDA) activities.

Why This Matters

According to a BozokMedia analysis, this case highlights the growing tension between judicial oversight and parliamentary autonomy. The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) gives the Speaker sole authority, but courts are increasingly being asked to intervene when decisions are delayed, potentially redefining the balance of power in Indian democracy.

Historical Background of the Anti-Defection Law

The Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution in 1985 to curb political defections. Historically, Speakers have held vast discretionary powers regarding the timeline of disqualification petitions, often leading to protracted legal battles. Landmark judgments like the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case have previously seen the Supreme Court emphasizing that Speakers must decide disqualification pleas within a reasonable timeframe, typically three months.

"The Supreme Court's decision to hear this plea highlights a growing judicial intolerance toward indefinite delays by Speakers in deciding disqualification matters, a trend that could reshape parliamentary discipline."

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution?
A1: The Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law, prevents elected MPs or MLAs from switching political parties after elections, penalizing defection with disqualification.

Q2: Why did the Supreme Court issue a notice instead of a direct order?
A2: The Supreme Court issued notices to hear the perspectives of the Lok Sabha Secretary General and the 20 rebel MPs before deciding whether to mandate a time-bound directive for the Speaker.