Why Trinamool’s rebel MPs merged with NCPI, a little-known party

While Jahangir Ali (54) and Barjeda Tripura (65) fought on NCPI tickets from Tripura’s Kailashahar constituency in Unakoti district and Chawmanu constituency in Dhalai district, respectively, two others were party-backed Independent candidates, sources said.

As far as the result goes, the party managed a combined 822 votes in the two seats where it fielded its own candidates – 536 in ST-reserved Chawmanu and 286 in Kailashahar.

Incidentally, the Trinamool Congress came third in Kailashahar, albeit with 696 votes, marginally above NOTA (537 votes). In Chawmanu, it secured fourth position with 566 votes, again just above NOTA (500).

A precedent

With the rebel TMC MPs conveying their intention to move to the NCPI, it brings back memories of a similar situation that had unfolded in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016 when the Congress lost its government in the state. Its entire legislature party, barring former CM Nabam Tuki, joined the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA), which had become part of the BJP-led North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA).

On December 31, 2016, Pema Khandu and 32 other legislators of the PPA switched loyalties to the BJP, giving the saffron party its first full-fledged government in the Northeast. After the move, in the 60-member House, the BJP strength reached 45. The PPA count went down to 10 while the Congress was left with only three members. In the next elections in 2019, Khandu emerged victorious for the BJP, winning 41 of 60 seats.

What explains the TMC move

The rebels’ decision to merge with the NCPI appears to be an attempt to avoid attracting the provisions of the anti-defection law and buy time to make the claim to be the “real TMC”.

Under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, disqualification on the grounds of defection is not applicable in case of merger. The merger of the original political party of a member of a House is deemed to have taken place “if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger”.

“We have merged with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India. It is a political party. It is a recognised regional party. When you leave with two-thirds of the party, you cannot demand the name of that party on the first day itself … In July, when Parliament restarts, we will make a demand to give us Trinamool since we have two-thirds majority. Then the court will decide (which is the real TMC),” veteran TMC MP Sudip Bandyopadhyay, one of the 20 rebels, told reporters after the meeting with Birla.

However, the TMC leadership has cited a 2023 judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on the Maharashtra political crisis which held that a political party and the legislature party are different entities and that protection under Paragraph 4 requires a valid merger involving the original political party as well. Ritabrata Banerjee, who has been recognised as the Leader of Opposition in Bengal, told The Indian Express on Sunday that the process to take over the political party was also underway.

“After the Ninety-first Amendment, the only lawful route by which a body of members may lawfully realign is a merger within the meaning of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, when two conditions are satisfied — namely when the political party merges and, cumulatively, two-thirds of the legislature party switches,” TMC Parliamentary Party leader in the Lok Sabha, Abhishek Banerjee, wrote in a letter to Birla dated June 10. The letter was handed over to Birla just moments before the rebels met the Speaker.

“The claims which are making the rounds in the media presume that only one condition has to be satisfied, which is incorrect. Therefore, assuming without admitting in any manner that two-thirds of the legislative party has switched, there has been no merger of the political party with any party or any creation of a new party called AITC,” Abhishek wrote.

The Diamond Harbour MP said the political party and not the legislature party was supreme. “The Court held that it is the political party, and not the legislature party, that appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House, and that the direction to vote in a particular manner, or to abstain, is issued by the political party and not the legislature party. It follows that no breakaway set of members may appoint their own Leader or Whip, or seek recognition as a distinct entity, in derogation of the authority of the political party,” he said.

Arguing that the Speaker “recognises the political party (and) not rival factions,” he said “the Court held that where two or more factions claim to be the political party, the Speaker is to determine, prima facie, who the political party is for the purpose of adjudicating disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule. The framework thus contemplates ascertainment of the one true political party, not the conferral of independent recognition upon a faction.”

He said “any voluntary act by which a member or members hold themselves out as a party/faction, repudiate the authority of the Party’s Leader and Whip, or function independently of the political party, would attract disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule as a voluntary giving up of membership of the political party, and under Paragraph 2(1)(b) in the event of voting or abstention contrary to the Party Whip.”

Abhishek urged the Speaker to “treat the AITC as a single political party represented in the House solely through its duly authorised Leader and Whip, and decline to accord any recognition, status, or facility to any purported separate group or faction of the AITC and afford the AITC an opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken on any communication” by the rebel group.