Supreme Court Asks West Bengal Speaker to Decide MLA Disqualification Pleas by October 8
The Supreme Court on Monday urged the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to decide by October 8, 2026, petitions seeking the disqualification of ten MLAs under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with defection. The petitions were filed by Trinamool Congress MLA Sohandeb Chattopadhyay against ten members belonging to the faction led by Ritabrata Banerjee. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dealt with the plea seeking an expeditious decision by the Speaker.
The disqualification petitions were filed before the West Bengal Assembly Speaker on July 8, 2026. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chattopadhyay, raised concerns over delays in deciding disqualification petitions and submitted that prolonged inaction could have consequences for the functioning of the anti-defection mechanism. The Supreme Court, however, did not itself decide whether any of the ten MLAs had incurred disqualification. Instead, it directed attention to the constitutional process before the Speaker.
While disposing of the writ petition, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Others, where the Court held that disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule are expected to be decided within a reasonable period, ordinarily indicated as three months. Since three months from July 8, 2026 would expire on October 8, the Supreme Court expressed its expectation that the West Bengal Speaker would make every endeavour to take an appropriate decision within that period.
The petitions concern Arup Roy, Ritabrata Banerjee, Firad Hakim, Sandipan Saha, Seuli Saha, Akrhruzzaman, Sabina Yeasmin, Rathin Ghosh, Biplab Mitra and Javed Ahmad Khan. The proceedings form part of the continuing legal questions surrounding alleged defections and the constitutional role of the Speaker in deciding disqualification matters. The Supreme Court’s order does not determine the merits of the allegations against the MLAs; those questions remain for consideration in the proceedings before the Speaker. The matter is being watched closely because the October 8 date corresponds with the three-month period referred to by the Court in its earlier jurisprudence on expeditious disposal of Tenth Schedule petitions.
