Supreme Court asks ECI to set realistic timeline for deciding TMC name, symbol dispute

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to expedite its adjudication of the dispute over the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) name and its ‘flowers and grass’ election symbol, while making it clear that the rival factions must be given a fair opportunity to lead evidence.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took note of the grievance raised by former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee that the Commission had delayed deciding the dispute and then passed an interim order shortly before the announcement of by-elections.

“For how much time do you expect? Give us a reasonable timeframe in which the parties are given a fair opportunity to lead their evidence, but the matter is not prolonged, and you also get sufficient time to apply your mind. Something realistic,” CJI Kant told the ECI.

The court directed the parties to assist in working out a practical timeline and posted the matter for September 28.

The dispute assumes significance with by-elections to the Nandigram and Rejinagar Assembly constituencies scheduled for October 6. The ECI, through an interim arrangement dated September 17, has barred both rival factions from using the existing TMC name and symbol for the bypolls pending adjudication of the underlying dispute.

The Mamata Banerjee-led faction has been allotted the name Mamata All India Trinamool Congress and the football player symbol, while the rival faction led by West Bengal Leader of Opposition Ritabrata Banerjee has been allotted the name Democratic Trinamool Congress and the envelope symbol.

The dispute reached the Commission after the rival faction questioned the validity of the existing organisational structure and claimed control over the party. The Mamata Banerjee camp has disputed the claim and maintained that its organisational structure remains valid.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, told the court that he was not seeking a stay on the by-elections but wanted the ECI proceedings to be conducted on a day-to-day basis so that the dispute could be decided expeditiously.

Sibal, however, raised a larger concern over the timing of the Commission’s interim order. He argued that the party had submitted its response before the ECI on July 2, yet the Commission continued to grant time to the rival faction, including until it secured recognition from the West Bengal Assembly Speaker.

“The same order could have been passed in July. I could have had a remedy. You can’t pass an interim order like this. I am not saying he can’t pass it. I am saying do it before you announce the election,” Sibal submitted.He warned that allowing such a mechanism to operate could have consequences beyond the present dispute, pointing to future elections, including the Calcutta Municipal Corporation polls.

“There will be other elections. You must give me a remedy. You want to pass an order against me, you can’t give me a fait accompli,” Sibal said.

Justice Bagchi acknowledged the concern, observing that the Court would have to work out a solution.

Appearing for the rival faction, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said his clients were willing to cooperate with the ECI proceedings.

“We will cooperate because we want the symbol. Evidence has to be led, of course,” Rohatgi said, referring to his experience of proceedings before the Commission.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the ECI, said the Commission had no objection to an expeditious decision but cautioned against imposing an unrealistically short deadline.

“For the health of democracy, we have no difficulty with an expeditious decision because we know where we stand in the matter. But to say do it in ten days or twenty days may be unreasonable,” Kaul said.

He also defended the Commission’s authority to issue interim directions while a party-symbol dispute remains pending. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, Kaul submitted that the ECI possesses plenitude of powers, including powers under Paragraphs 15 and 18, to issue appropriate interim directions pending final adjudication.

The Supreme Court’s intervention therefore puts the focus on two interconnected questions: how quickly the ECI should decide a dispute affecting a party’s identity and symbol before an election, and how far its interim powers can extend while that dispute remains unresolved.

The Court is expected to consider the timeline for the ECI proceedings when the matter comes up next on September 28.