Supreme Court Seeks Response on TMC MP’s Plea Against Speaker’s Inaction

thelawmonitor
2 Min Read
Supreme Court Seeks Response on TMC MP's Plea Against Speaker's Inaction

The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice regarding a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee. The petition challenges the delay by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in ruling on disqualification petitions against 20 TMC MPs who defected to the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The matter was brought before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.

The court has sought responses from the rebel MPs but has opted not to issue a notice to Speaker Om Birla, the central figure in this case. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized the importance of timely action without directly challenging the constitutional authority of the Speaker.

The controversy stems from the defection of approximately 20 MPs from the TMC to the NCPI in June. The shift occurred after TMC’s loss in the West Bengal Assembly elections, which allegedly fueled internal dissatisfaction within the party ranks led by Mamata Banerjee and Abhishek Banerjee.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, advised against issuing a notice to the Speaker during the court proceedings. Justice Joymalya Bagchi supported this stance, noting, “We are not to pass any order against a constitutional authority, but to ensure that it is done in a timely manner.” Chief Justice Surya Kant concurred, stating, “Yes. Other respondents are there.”

MP Abhishek Banerjee pressed for clarification on why no notice was issued to Speaker Om Birla, questioning the court’s approach. Justice Bagchi responded, “Are you interested in adjudication of the issue or notice,” emphasizing the court’s focus on resolving the matter expediently.

The Supreme Court will continue to address this issue, which centers on the application of the Anti Defection Law and the responsibilities of the Speaker in such cases. The outcome remains to be seen as the court seeks to balance constitutional duties with the need for prompt action on disqualification petitions.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *