Mamata moves Supreme Court against ECI’s freeze on Trinamool Congress symbol

Polity & Governance · 19 September 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) faction led by Mamata Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge the Election Commission of India's (ECI) interim decision to freeze the party's official name and symbol. This decision came ahead of assembly byelections in Nandigram and Rejinagar, West Bengal. The ECI temporarily barred both rival factions—led by Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee respectively—from using the original symbol, assigning them new temporary names and symbols instead. Mamata Banerjee's petition argues that the ECI's decision relied heavily on the statements of rebel legislators who are currently facing disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) of the Constitution. Additionally, a separate petition highlights the prolonged delay by the West Bengal Assembly Speaker in resolving these disqualification proceedings against 10 rebel legislators. The case brings to the forefront the critical legal intersection between the ECI's powers under the Symbols Order, 1968, and the Speaker's jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule.

Why it's in the news

The Mamata Banerjee-led faction of the Trinamool Congress has moved the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India's interim order freezing the party's name and symbol. The petition contests the ECI's reliance on statements from rebel legislators facing disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.

Facts to remember

Under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order 1968, the ECI decides disputes among rival sections of a political party.
Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission of India.
The Tenth Schedule contains provisions regarding the disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures.
The Dinesh Goswami Committee recommended that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule be decided by the President or Governor.

Background and context

Under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is the sole authority to decide disputes among rival sections or splinter groups of a recognized political party, claiming to be that party. The ECI evaluates both the organizational wing and the legislative wing strength of the rival factions to determine which group represents the majority. In landmark cases like Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to apply the 'test of majority' in terms of both organizational and legislative support. However, conflict arises when members of the legislative wing who support a splinter faction are simultaneously facing disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule. If the Speaker delays the disqualification decision, these rebel legislators continue to influence the ECI's assessment of legislative majority, creating a constitutional deadlock between the powers of the Speaker and the ECI.

Constitutional provisions

Article 324 — Vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission of India, which includes the power to recognize political parties and allot symbols.
Tenth Schedule — Contains provisions regarding the disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures on the grounds of defection, decided by the Speaker/Chairman.

Committees and reports

Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms — Recommended that the power of deciding disqualification under the Tenth Schedule should be vested in the President/Governor (acting on the advice of the ECI) rather than the Speaker to ensure neutrality.
Law Commission of India (170th Report) — Recommended reforms to the Tenth Schedule to strengthen inner-party democracy and prevent split/merger provisions from being misused.

Mains practice: Examine the constitutional and legal conflict that arises when the Election Commission of India decides on party symbol disputes under the Symbols Order, 1968, while disqualification proceedings against rebel legislators are pending before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule.

Introduction:

The dispute over political party symbols highlights a critical constitutional friction between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the legislative Speaker. While the ECI derives its authority to resolve party disputes from Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Speaker holds exclusive jurisdiction over disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Body:

The core areas of conflict and legal issues include:

• Overlapping Jurisdictions: The ECI determines the 'real' faction of a political party by assessing majority support in both the organizational and legislative wings. If the legislative majority is composed of rebel members whose status is contested, the ECI's decision-making process directly intersects with the Speaker's pending decision on their disqualification.

• The Dilemma of Pending Disqualification: If the Speaker delays deciding on disqualification petitions, rebel legislators continue to vote and represent the party in ECI hearings. If they are later disqualified, their participation in the ECI's 'test of majority' retrospectively compromises the legitimacy of the ECI's decision.

• Judicial Precedents: In the Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker (2020) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable time (typically three months). Furthermore, in the Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023) judgment, the Court clarified that the ECI is not barred from deciding symbol disputes merely because disqualification petitions are pending, but emphasized the need for harmonious construction.

• Impact on Inner-Party Democracy: The lack of a statutory timeline for Speakers to decide on defections allows ruling factions to manipulate legislative strength, undermining the spirit of the Tenth Schedule and democratic stability.

Conclusion:

To resolve this constitutional impasse, there is an urgent need to implement the recommendations of the Dinesh Goswami Committee and the Supreme Court's suggestions to vest the power of disqualification in an independent external tribunal or the ECI itself, ensuring swift, non-partisan adjudication of both defections and symbol disputes.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, consider the following statements: 1. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is the sole authority to decide disputes among rival groups or sections of a recognized political party. 2. The decisions of the ECI regarding symbol disputes under Paragraph 15 of the Order are final and cannot be challenged in any court of law. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A. Statement 1 is correct: Under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, the ECI is the sole authority to decide issues of merger or split in a recognized political party. Statement 2 is incorrect: The decisions of the ECI under the Symbols Order are subject to judicial review and can be challenged in the Supreme Court or High Courts (as seen in Sadiq Ali v. ECI, 1972).

Q2. Which of the following committees recommended that the power to decide on the disqualification of a member under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should vest in the President or Governor, acting on the advice of the Election Commission, rather than the Speaker?

Punchhi Commission
Dinesh Goswami Committee
Law Commission's 244th Report
Sarkaria Commission

Answer: B. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) recommended that the power of deciding on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule should be vested in the President/Governor, who would act on the advice of the Election Commission, to ensure neutrality and eliminate political bias associated with the Speaker's office.

Q3. In which of the following landmark judgments did the Supreme Court of India hold that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review, and that the Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions?

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Answer: A. In the landmark Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but declared that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review, clarifying that the Speaker functions as a quasi-judicial tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions.

Revision flashcards

Which legal instrument empowers the Election Commission of India to decide disputes among rival factions of a recognized political party? Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
What are the two main 'tests' applied by the ECI to determine which faction is the real political party during a split? The 'test of organizational majority' (support within the party's office-bearers/governing body) and the 'test of legislative majority' (support among elected MPs and MLAs).
In which 2020 judgment did the Supreme Court direct that Speakers should ideally decide Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions within a period of three months? Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020).
Can the ECI decide on a party symbol dispute if disqualification petitions against some of the party's MLAs are pending before the Speaker? Yes. In Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that the ECI's jurisdiction to decide symbol disputes is independent and not barred by pending disqualification proceedings.
Which Constitutional Amendment introduced the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) to the Indian Constitution? The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.