The extension was granted after the MPs, now aligned with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India, sought more time to answer notices issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on August 25. Those notices had asked them to submit their comments within seven days on petitions filed by Trinamool leader Abhishek Banerjee.
Moitra questioned the timing of the additional period because the Supreme Court is due to take up Banerjee’s plea on September 18, four days before the new parliamentary deadline expires. She alleged that the extension could be cited before the court as a reason to seek more time in the judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court on August 25 issued notices to the 20 MPs on Banerjee’s petition challenging the delay in deciding the disqualification cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked the MPs to respond while hearing Banerjee’s request for an expeditious decision by the Speaker.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker and the Lok Sabha Secretary General, told the court that notices had already been issued in the disqualification proceedings. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the issue before the court concerned conclusion of the proceedings within a time frame, rather than merely the issuance of notices.
The court did not issue a separate notice to Birla after Mehta said he would appear for the Speaker, but it sought responses from the rebel lawmakers. The Lok Sabha Secretariat’s August communication invoked Rule 7 of the defection rules and asked each member to furnish comments for the Speaker’s consideration. The extension means the parliamentary reply period will now run beyond the date fixed for the next Supreme Court hearing.
The parliamentary notices forwarded copies of Banerjee’s petition dated June 18, filed under Rule 6 of the Members of Lok Sabha Rules, 1985. Banerjee later met Birla on June 19 and said 20 separate petitions had been submitted seeking the MPs’ disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
Trinamool’s case is that the MPs were elected on the party’s symbol and subsequently broke with the party and aligned with the NCPI. The party argues that their actions amount to voluntarily giving up membership and therefore attract the anti-defection provisions.
The rebel MPs have maintained that their move is protected as a merger. They have sought recognition as a separate group in the Lok Sabha and have been allotted separate seats in the House, although the claimed merger with the NCPI has not been formally approved by the Speaker.
The Tenth Schedule allows members to avoid disqualification in a merger if at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to such a move. The dispute therefore turns partly on whether the conditions laid down for a protected merger have been met and on the Speaker’s authority to adjudicate the petitions.
The 20 MPs include Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, Rachana Banerjee, Yusuf Pathan, Sayani Ghosh, June Maliah, Mala Roy and several other members elected from West Bengal on Trinamool tickets.
Their break with the party followed the West Bengal Assembly election and developed into a wider contest over control of Trinamool’s parliamentary strength. The group later associated itself with the NCPI, which has backed the National Democratic Alliance.
Moitra had already criticised the MPs for seeking a three-week extension before Birla granted the request. She questioned why they needed additional time after publicly distancing themselves from Trinamool and aligning with another political formation.
