The Supreme Court on Monday set a four-month deadline to decide the symbol dispute between the rival Trinamool Congress factions pending before the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The direction was passed on a plea filed by former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee challenging the ECI decision to freeze her party symbol and name in an interim order. “We grant four weeks time to the parties to place their affidavit and counter affidavit and complete the process within four weeks. However, the court was not willing to extend the schedule. The bench stressed that its order should not be seen as an expression on the merits of the dispute. Under protest, Mamata Banerjee suggested a neutral poll symbol along with choices for a party name. A similar exercise was carried out by the rival faction too. The Election Commission is currently in the process of deciding which is the real TMC and can claim the party’s symbol, two flowers with a clump of grass; in the meantime, the rebel faction has taken the name Democratic Trinamool Congress and been given the envelope symbol; the other one, led by Mamata Banerjee has taken the name Mamata All India Trinamool Congress, and been assigned the football player symbol. The eventual allotment of the original name and symbol will likely hinge on a hearing where both sides demonstrate organisational and legislative strength, similar to the approach ECI followed in the Shiv Sena and Samajwadi Party cases. The losing faction will have the option to approach the Supreme Court.
In her petition before the top court, the former West Bengal chief minister challenged the poll panel’s interim order passed on September 17 freezing the original party symbol and asking both factions to choose a name and symbol of their choice. In the West Bengal elections this year, the BJP swept to power winning 208 seats to the TMC’s 80. After that, 58 legislators of the TMC, led by Ritabrata Banerjee, formed a separate faction.
From that date, ECI will take a decision in three months,” the bench said. When the court outlined the four month timeline, Naidu said that this duration would not be sufficient and sought at least five months.
