The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that the Lok Sabha Speaker was expected to take an expeditious decision on the petitions filed by Trinamool Congress General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the writ petition filed by Banerjee seeking a time-bound decision by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that although notices were issued by the Speaker to the rebel MPs in August, they had not filed their replies within the initial 14-day period. He said the Speaker had subsequently extended the time for filing replies until September 22, but the MPs had again sought an extension.

Bandopadhyay described the situation as "ridiculous" in the context of proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.

"If someone is disqualified, they can't function as MP from that date," he submitted, asking whether the Speaker was following the observations madee by the Supreme Court regarding expeditious disposal of 10th Schedule disputes.

When Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Speaker has already issued notices on the petitions, the bench said that a time-bound decision was expected.

"We will expect anything which is required to be decided expeditiously, the very nature of the lis...that demands early adjudication," CJI Surya Kant said.

Supplementing the CJI, Justice Bagchi said, "We just remind the authority of ensuring expeditious resolution, keeping in mind the paramount importance of 10th Schedule. We may not give imperative directions, but keeping in mind the decision in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case...have resolution of this issue expeditiously."

The Solicitor General submitted that the Speaker was performing a constitutional function and that the Court should not prescribe a time limit in the present circumstances.

"Please don't take it [otherwise] but does a constitutional authority need to be 'reminded'?" SG asked.

"We don't expect that there should be a need...but it would be the last option...what we want is a timeline.." Justice Bagchi said.

"There is a presumption that there is no need to remind. But it's rebuttable," CJI Surya Kant said.

The SG said that there has been no inordinate delay in this matter, as the notice was issued in August on the disqualification petitions filed in the middle of the Monsoon session.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the deadline set by the Keisham Meghachandra Singh judgment was 3-months for the Speaker's decision and that period was now at the fag end.

"3 months period has lapsed. Resolution of this adjudication is hardly possible within the window...the 3-month period having lapsed...we will not put a constitutional authority to ransom...we will just remind that earlier directions were given in 3 months...we expect that you will perform your role expeditiously. AG and SG are constitutional authorities to assist us."

The SG said that the Speaker is acting as a Tribunal, and the decision can be taken after evidence has been led by both sides, implying that the fact-finding exercise is bound to take time.

The bench however urged the SG to propose a timeline within which the Speaker will decide.

Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Maninder Singh, for the rebel MPs, submitted that no occasion has arisen for judicial interference in the present case. They submitted that in cases such as Keisham Meghachandra Singh and Padi Kaushik Reddy, there was a huge delay which led to the Court's intervention.

"We have just asked for one extension, Speaker is considering it. 4 weeks, we will file reply," Kaul submitted.

The bench reiterated its demand for a timeline from the Speaker. "Mr SG, you come back and give us a timeline," Justice Bagchi said.

The Solicitor, however said that he cannot give any commitment. "I will not make any commitment. I will explore...This court's monitoring may not be justified. I would urge not to fix Speaker's schedule," the SG maintained.

The bench ultimately adjourned the hearing, recording the statement of the rebel MPs that they will file reply within four weeks, without passing any directions.

The 20 MPs named as respondents are Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Sudip Bandyopadhyay, Satabdi Roy, Prasun Banerjee, Rachana Banerjee, Jagadish Chandra Barma Basunia, Partha Bhowmick, Arup Chakraborty, Adhikari Deepak Dev, Sayani Ghosh, Bapi Haldar, Md Abu Taher Khan, Kalipada Saren Kherwal, Asit Kumar Mal, June Maliah, Mitali Bag, Khalilur Rahaman, Mala Roy, Sharmila Sarkar and Pathan Yusuf.

The dispute stems from the rebellion within the TMC parliamentary party, with 20 MPs having sought to break away from the party and align themselves with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The rebel camp has sought recognition as a separate group in the Lok Sabha.

Case : ABHISHEK BANERJEE v. HONBLE SPEAKER LOK SABHA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1033/2026