'Seen what delay does in Shiv Sena': Supreme Court asks EC for timeline on TMC name-symbol row

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission (EC) to spell out how much time it would need to decide the dispute over the Trinamool Congress' (TMC) name and election symbol involving rival factions led by Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the proceedings should give both sides a fair opportunity to present their case but should not be allowed to drag on. The court referred to the prolonged dispute over the Shiv Sena's name and symbol while stressing the need for an early resolution.

“We have seen what delay does in Shiv Sena, Sir. There has to be a resolution,” Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for the Ritabrata Banerjee faction.

EC asked to give timeline

The court asked the poll panel to obtain instructions on the time required for final adjudication of the dispute. CJI Surya Kant said the process should allow the parties a fair hearing and sufficient time for the commission to consider their submissions, but should not continue indefinitely.

The matter has been listed for next week, with the EC expected to provide the requested timeline.

The dispute escalated after the EC, on September 17, temporarily froze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its flowers-and-grass symbol. For the October 6 West Bengal bypolls, the Mamata faction was allotted the name “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the football player symbol, while the rival faction was allotted “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the envelope symbol.

Sibal questions timing of EC order

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, challenged the timing of the EC's interim order. He argued that the dispute had been before the commission for months and that the order was passed after the election schedule had already been announced.

“Can the EC delay matters, and then pass orders in the midst of elections knowing that I won't have a remedy?” Sibal submitted.

He said the commission could have taken the decision earlier, when his client would have had more time to seek legal remedy. Sibal also urged the EC to complete the substantive adjudication in October, before another election takes place.

Justice Bagchi said the immediate course was for the EC to reach a final decision as soon as possible. The bench also indicated that the already-notified bypolls could not be disturbed.

Ritabrata faction seeks more time

The rival faction opposed an October deadline, arguing that the dispute involved complex factual questions requiring affidavits, documents and evidence.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul said deciding the matter within a month would be unreasonable. Rohatgi also sought more time for the commission to examine the competing claims.

The Supreme Court has now asked the EC to clarify the timeframe it needs for the final decision, while keeping the matter pending for further hearing.