TMC name-symbol row: Supreme Court asks ECI for timeline

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission of India to indicate a realistic timeframe for deciding the dispute between the rival factions of the All India Trinamool Congress over the party's name and its 'flowers and grass' election symbol.

A three-member bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked ECI to ascertain how much time it would require for final adjudication and posted the matter for Monday.

While the rival factions must be given a fair opportunity to place their evidence before ECI, the proceedings cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, SC said.


Also read | BJP plugs gaps in state units, brings RSS connect back in focus

"Give us a reasonable timeframe in which the parties are given a fair opportunity to lead their evidence, but the matter is not prolonged and you also get sufficient time to apply your mind. Something realistic," CJI Kant told ECI counsel.

The bench indicated that ECI could conduct the proceedings on a day-to-day basis to reach an early decision.

"Maybe what is required is to issue a direction to the Election Commission that they should start hearing the matter, hear it for some time on a day-to-day basis, whatever evidence or proof you have to lead, and decide it," CJI Kant orally observed.

Justice Bagchi also flagged the consequences of prolonged adjudication, referring to SC's experience in the dispute over the Shiv Sena name and symbol. "We have seen what delay does in Shiv Sena (case)," justice Bagchi told the rival faction's counsel.

Also read | India’s election umpire must play by its own rulebook

The observations fell from the bench during the hearing of a plea filed by Mamata Banerjee, challenging ECI's September 17 interim order freezing the original party name and symbol amid rival claims. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, questioned the timing of ECI order, arguing that the dispute had been pending for months, but the order was passed after the bypoll process had commenced.

The bench indicated that judicial interference with the election process would be difficult after the notification of the polls.