BREAKING| Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Judgment Disqualifying Mukul Roy As Member Of West Bengal Legislative Assembly

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgment which disqualified Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, the son of Mukul Roy, challenging the High Court's order. The bench ordered that the operation of the High Court's judgment will be kept in abeyance.

Roy, who had won the 2021 Krishnanagar North seat on a BJP ticket, had allegedly joined the Trinamool Congress after the elections. The disqualification petitions were filed by BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and MLA Ambika Roy. After the Speaker refused to disqualify Roy, Adhikari approached the High Court.

In the Supreme Court, Advocate Preetika Dwivedi, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the disqualification of a legislator in exercise of its narrow judicial review powers. She also informed that since Mukul Roy was unwell, his son has filed the petition. The counsel submitted that the Speaker had rejected the petitions on the ground that the social media posts submitted to show the alleged defection of Mukul Roy were not authenticated in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the High Court reversed this view, observing that strict adherence to Section 65B was not necessary in proceedings under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Guarav Agarwal, appearing for Suvendhu Adhikari and Ambika Roy, submitted that Roy had contested on a BJP ticket and had later openly joined the opposite party, which clearly amounted to defection. Agarwal also raised objection to the locus of the son filing the petition. However, the bench was not convinced much by the argument on locus. "If he is in a critical situation, why can't a family member file the petition? He is also added as a respondent," CJI Kant said.

The bench also expressed reservations about the High Court's reasoning that Section 65B will not apply in anti-defection proceedings. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court on Section 65B, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Gorantyal, came in an election petition.

"To say that Section 65B will stand relaxed for the purpose of disqualification will do a disservice to the precedent. The High Court also says that it has transcripts, and it is a case of non-traverse. For non-traverse, you will disqualify a person?" Justice Bagchi asked. CJI Kant said that electronic evidence needs to be proved to be authentic, pointing out the presence of AI-generated videos.

Agarwal opposed the stay of the judgment, saying that he can prima facie show that there was defection. However, the bench ordered a stay of the judgment, having regard to the consequence.

"The Assembly is coming to an end in four months," CJI Kant noted. "If he contests the election again for MLA, then you move an application, we will see what is to be done," CJI told Agarwal.

Case : Subhranshu Roy v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly | Diary No.72372/2025