Supreme Court Suspends Calcutta HC’s Order Disqualifying Mukul Roy as Bengal MLA

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court that had disqualified Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law. The interim order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while issuing notice on a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, son of Mukul Roy, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Bench directed that the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain in abeyance.
Mukul Roy, who was elected from the Krishnanagar North constituency in the 2021 Assembly elections on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket, was alleged to have joined the Trinamool Congress after the polls.

Disqualification petitions were filed by BJP Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and party MLA Ambika Roy. After the Speaker declined to disqualify Roy, Adhikari approached the Calcutta High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Preetika Dwivedi, contended that the High Court had exceeded the limits of judicial review by ordering the disqualification of a legislator. She submitted that the Speaker had rejected the disqualification petitions on the ground that the social media material relied upon to establish defection was not authenticated in accordance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that strict compliance with Section 65B was not mandatory in proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. It was further submitted that the petition had been filed by Roy’s son due to Roy’s ill health.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing for Suvendu Adhikari and Ambika Roy, argued that Roy had contested the election on a BJP ticket and subsequently joined the rival party, which constituted clear defection. He also objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it was filed by Roy’s son.

The Bench, however, was not persuaded by the objection on locus standi, with the Chief Justice observing that a family member could approach the Court if the concerned person was in a critical condition.

The Bench also expressed reservations regarding the High Court’s view that Section 65B of the Evidence Act would not apply to anti-defection proceedings. Justice Bagchi noted that the authoritative judgment on Section 65B, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal, was rendered in the context of an election petition, and relaxing the requirement for disqualification proceedings would undermine settled precedent. He further questioned whether disqualification could be based on alleged non-traverse of electronic material. Chief Justice Kant emphasised the necessity of establishing the authenticity of electronic evidence, particularly in light of concerns surrounding AI-generated content.

While opposing the grant of stay, Agarwal submitted that a prima facie case of defection was made out. Nevertheless, the Bench stayed the High Court’s judgment, taking into account the serious consequences involved. Noting that the tenure of the Assembly was nearing its end, with only four months remaining, the Chief Justice observed that appropriate orders could be considered if Roy were to contest the elections again.​