SUPREME COURT HALTS CALCUTTA HC ORDER DISQUALIFYING MUKUL ROY FROM WEST BENGAL ASSEMBLY:

The Supreme Court on Friday granted an interim stay on the Calcutta High Court's judgment that had disqualified senior politician Mukul Roy as a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the order while hearing a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, Mukul Roy's son, challenging the high court's decision. The bench directed that the operation of the impugned high court judgment would remain in abeyance until further orders, effectively preserving Roy's MLA status for the time being. Notice was issued to the respondents, including West Bengal Assembly Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and MLA Ambika Roy, who had originally sought Roy's disqualification.

The case stems from Mukul Roy's election to the Krishnanagar North (also referred to as Krishnanagar Uttar) constituency in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly polls on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket. Shortly after the victory, in June 2021, Roy joined the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in a public event attended by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other party leaders. Disqualification petitions were then filed by Suvendu Adhikari and Ambika Roy, alleging voluntary defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

The West Bengal Assembly Speaker initially rejected these petitions, citing that the social media posts and electronic evidence submitted to prove the defection were not properly authenticated as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the Calcutta High Court overturned the Speaker's decision in its November 13, 2025, order. It held that strict compliance with Section 65B was not essential in anti-defection proceedings under the Tenth Schedule and relied on available transcripts and other material, noting that Roy had not denied key allegations.

Before the Supreme Court, advocate Preetika Dwivedi, representing the petitioner, argued that the high court had overstepped its limited powers of judicial review by directly ordering the disqualification of a sitting legislator. She highlighted that the petition was filed by Roy's son due to Mukul Roy's ill health. Dwivedi emphasized the Speaker's reasoning on the lack of proper authentication for electronic evidence and contended that the high court's relaxation of Section 65B requirements was erroneous.

Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing for Adhikari and Ambika Roy, defended the high court's view. He submitted that Roy had contested on a BJP ticket and later openly joined the opposing party, constituting clear defection. Agarwal also questioned the locus standi of Roy's son to file the petition but faced resistance from the bench, which observed that a family member could legitimately approach the court in cases of critical health issues, especially since the son was also named as a respondent.

The bench expressed significant reservations about the high court's approach to electronic evidence. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Gorantyal, which dealt with the admissibility of electronic records, arose in the context of an election petition. The bench remarked that exempting anti-defection proceedings from Section 65B compliance would undermine this precedent. It further questioned whether disqualification could be based merely on non-traversal of allegations or transcripts alone, stressing the need for proper proof of authenticity in the era of AI-generated content and deepfakes.

Despite Agarwal's contention that a prima facie case of defection existed, the bench prioritized the severe consequences of disqualification. Noting that the current West Bengal Assembly term is set to end in about four months, Chief Justice Kant observed that if Roy chooses to contest the upcoming elections, any necessary applications could be filed for the court's consideration at that stage.

This interim stay marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle, allowing Mukul Roy to retain his legislative position pending a final hearing on the merits of the case. The matter is expected to raise broader questions about the scope of judicial intervention in anti-defection disputes, the admissibility of electronic evidence, and the balance between party discipline and individual rights in Indian politics.