🗞️ Why in News A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard three anti-defection and party-split matters on 23 and 24 September 2026. It said the Lok Sabha Speaker is expected to decide disqualification petitions against 20 Trinamool Congress MPs expeditiously, dismissed former Telangana MLA Danam Nagender’s challenge to his disqualification, and asked the Election Commission to propose a timeline for deciding the Trinamool Congress symbol dispute.
Three Cases, One Law
| Date | Matter | What the Court did |
|---|---|---|
| 23 Sep | Petitions before the Lok Sabha Speaker to disqualify 20 Trinamool Congress MPs under the Tenth Schedule | Called the three months taken so far a “red flag”; said it expects an expeditious decision; fixed no deadline; listed the plea after six weeks |
| 24 Sep | Danam Nagender, disqualified as an MLA by the Telangana High Court | Dismissed his petition; held the High Court’s reading of the law correct |
| 24 Sep | The ECI’s 17 September interim order freezing the All India Trinamool Congress name and symbol | Declined to disturb the interim arrangement during notified by-elections; asked the ECI to propose a timeline for final decision |
1. The Speaker’s Clock
A plea by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee sought an early decision by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on petitions to disqualify 20 of the party’s MPs. As background, the petitions were filed in June 2026; the Speaker issued notices on 5 August, giving 14 days to reply, and after the MPs sought more time extended the deadline to 22 September, with a further extension since sought. The Bench called the delay of three months a “red flag” and said it would remind the authority to resolve the matter expeditiously, keeping in mind the paramount importance of the Tenth Schedule. Justice Bagchi noted that the three-month period indicated in Keisham Meghachandra Singh had passed. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed a judicial timeline, arguing that the Speaker acts as a constitutional tribunal and that the MPs must be heard; he told the Court the MPs would file their replies within four weeks. The Court fixed no deadline and listed the matter for hearing after six weeks.
The precedent. As background, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (21 January 2020), the Supreme Court held that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months, and suggested that Parliament consider moving the adjudication from the Speaker to an independent body. Also as background, in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (31 July 2025), it directed the Telangana Speaker to decide within three months on petitions against 10 MLAs of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) who had moved to the Congress, and held that a Speaker deciding under Paragraph 6 is not immune from judicial review.
2. A Disqualification the Court Would Not Disturb
The facts. Danam Nagender was elected MLA for Khairatabad in Telangana on a BRS ticket. While still an MLA, he contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election from Secunderabad as a Congress candidate. As background, Telangana Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar had dismissed the disqualification petitions against him on 11 March 2026.
The High Court. On 18 September 2026, a Telangana High Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh set aside the Speaker’s order and itself declared Nagender disqualified under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule (voluntarily giving up membership of his party), instead of sending the matter back to the Speaker. As background, he had filed his nomination as a Congress candidate on 23 April 2024, the date from which the disqualification takes effect.
The Supreme Court, 24 September. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Tenth Schedule lets a party condone a member’s conduct. The Bench pointed out that condonation is available only under Paragraph 2(1)(b), for voting or abstaining against the party’s direction, and not under Paragraph 2(1)(a), for giving up membership. The BRS denied condoning anything. The Court found the High Court’s judgment based on a correct interpretation and declined to interfere.
Why this matters for Prelims. The two grounds in Paragraph 2(1) are often confused. 2(1)(a): voluntarily giving up membership, which can be inferred from conduct, such as contesting on another party’s ticket; there is no condonation. 2(1)(b): voting or abstaining against the party’s whip without permission, which the party may condone within 15 days.
3. A Frozen Party Symbol
The ECI’s interim order. On 17 September 2026, finding two rival groups, one led by Mamata Banerjee and the other by Ritabrata Banerjee, each claiming to be the real party, the Election Commission froze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its “Flowers & Grass” symbol. For the interim, it allotted the name “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “Football Player” symbol to one faction, and “Democratic Trinamool Congress” with the “Envelope” symbol to the other.
In the Supreme Court. The Mamata Banerjee faction challenged the order, arguing that the ECI had delayed the dispute since July and then acted in the middle of by-elections. The Bench said the interim arrangement for the notified by-elections could not be touched now, but that an early final decision was needed. It asked the ECI to say how much time it needed, “reasonable time in which parties are given fair opportunity... but not too long”, and listed the matter for the following week. When counsel cited interim orders in the Shiv Sena dispute, Justice Bagchi remarked, “We have seen what delay does in Shiv Sena.”
The law. The ECI decides disputes between rival groups of a recognised party under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, issued under Article 324 and the election rules. In Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission (1971), the Supreme Court upheld this power; the tests the ECI applies are the party’s aims and objects, its constitution, and the majority in its organisational and legislative wings (see our explainer on party-split criteria). In Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (May 2023), the Shiv Sena case, a Constitution Bench held that the Speaker’s disqualification proceedings and the ECI’s symbol proceedings can run side by side.
The Tenth Schedule at a Glance
| Provision | What it says |
|---|---|
| Origin | Added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 |
| Para 2(1)(a) | Disqualification for voluntarily giving up membership of the party |
| Para 2(1)(b) | Disqualification for voting or abstaining contrary to the party’s direction, unless condoned within 15 days |
| Para 2(2) | An independent member who joins a party is disqualified |
| Para 2(3) | A nominated member who joins a party after six months is disqualified |
| Para 4 | Merger exception if at least two-thirds of the legislature party agree |
| Para 6 | The Speaker or Chairman decides questions of disqualification |
| 91st Amendment, 2003 | Deleted Para 3 (the one-third “split” exception) |
| Kihoto Hollohan (1992) | Upheld the Schedule; the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review |
Why It Matters
Delay is the weak point of the anti-defection law. The Tenth Schedule sets no time limit, and a presiding officer who belongs to a party can let petitions lie until a term ends. The courts have responded with a “reasonable time” of three months (Keisham, 2020), directions to decide (Padi Kaushik Reddy, 2025) and, in the Telangana case, a High Court deciding the question itself. The Supreme Court’s refusal to fix a deadline for the Lok Sabha Speaker shows the limit of that approach: comity between institutions.
The reform debate. As background, the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and later bodies proposed that disqualification be decided by the President or Governor on the ECI’s advice, and in Keisham the Court itself suggested an independent tribunal. Each option trades the Speaker’s constitutional role against speed and neutrality.
Symbols and elections. A party split during an election cycle forces the ECI to choose between speed and a full hearing. An interim freeze keeps both groups on “even keel” for the moment but, if prolonged, lets the dispute shape the election. The Court’s request for a timeline is an attempt to hold the ECI to a middle path.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2. Parliament and State legislatures: structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers and privileges; salient features of the Representation of People’s Act; constitutional bodies (Election Commission).
A question worth preparing. “The anti-defection law has been weakened less by its text than by delays in its enforcement.” Examine the role of presiding officers and courts in deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. (250 words)
The Mains framing. Set out the purpose of the Tenth Schedule (stability, respect for the mandate) and its grounds. Then show the enforcement problem: the Speaker as a party member, no time limit, and the resulting delays. Trace the judicial response from Kihoto Hollohan through Keisham Meghachandra, Subhash Desai and Padi Kaushik Reddy, and note the Telangana High Court’s decision to disqualify directly. Close with reform options: a statutory time limit, an independent tribunal or the President and Governor acting on ECI advice, and stronger internal party democracy.
📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia
Prelims, statement-ready facts:
- The Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) was added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
- Para 2(1)(a): disqualification for voluntarily giving up membership of one’s political party.
- Para 2(1)(b): voting or abstaining against the party’s direction; the party may condone it within 15 days.
- Para 4: merger protects members only if at least two-thirds of the legislature party agree.
- Para 6: the Speaker or Chairman decides disqualification questions.
- The 91st Amendment (2003) deleted Para 3, the one-third split exception.
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020): disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months.
- Party-split disputes are decided by the ECI under Para 15 of the Election Symbols Order, 1968.
- On 24 September 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed Danam Nagender’s challenge to his disqualification.
Prelims, the traps:
- Condonation applies only to 2(1)(b) (whip violations), not to 2(1)(a) (giving up membership).
- “Voluntarily giving up membership” can be inferred from conduct; a formal resignation is not needed.
- Kihoto Hollohan (1992) made the Speaker’s decision subject to judicial review; it did not remove the Speaker’s role.
- The Symbols Order is issued by the ECI, not enacted by Parliament.
Mains, arguments and keywords:
- Enforcement gap: a Speaker who is a party member and faces no time limit can defeat the law by delay.
- Judicial response: reasonable time (Keisham), directions to decide (Padi Kaushik Reddy), direct disqualification by a High Court.
- Reform: statutory time limit; independent tribunal; President or Governor acting on ECI advice (Goswami Committee).
- Keywords: Tenth Schedule, voluntarily giving up membership, condonation, Speaker as tribunal, Paragraph 15, Sadiq Ali tests.
Interview, be ready for:
- “Should courts disqualify legislators directly when Speakers delay?” Balance the separation of powers against the right of voters to a timely remedy.
- “Does the anti-defection law stifle dissent?” It can, since members must follow the whip; some suggest limiting it to confidence votes and money bills.
Sources: LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, The Hindu
Source: Anti-Defection Law in Court: A Speaker's Delay, a Disqualification Upheld and a Frozen Party Symbol — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs
