Today, the Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court, preventing it from disqualifying Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed the Calcutta High Court’s judgment while issuing notice on a petition filed by Subhranshu Roy, Mukul Roy’s son, challenging the order. The bench directed that the High Court’s ruling will remain in abeyance.

Roy, who won the 2021 Krishnanagar North seat on a BJP ticket, allegedly joined the Trinamool Congress after the elections. BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and MLA Ambika Roy filed disqualification petitions against him. When the Assembly Speaker refused to act, Adhikari moved the High Court.

During the couse of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by disqualifying a legislator, going beyond its limited judicial review powers.

The counsel explained that Mukul Roy, being unwell, had his son file the petition on his behalf. He also pointed out that the Speaker had rejected the disqualification petitions, noting that the social media posts used to claim Roy’s defection were not authenticated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The High Court, however, overturned this view, holding that strict compliance with Section 65B was not necessary in proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, representing Suvendu Adhikari and Ambika Roy, argued that Roy, having contested on a BJP ticket, had later openly joined the rival party, which clearly amounted to defection. Agarwal also questioned the standing of Roy’s son in filing the petition. The bench, however, was not persuaded by this argument. “If he is in a critical situation, why can’t a family member file the petition? He is also added as a respondent,” CJI Kant remarked.

Further, the Court questioned the High Court’s reasoning that Section 65B of the Evidence Act would not apply in anti-defection proceedings. Justice Bagchi noted that the landmark Supreme Court judgment on Section 65B, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Gorantyal, arose in the context of an election petition.

The Court asked: "To say that Section 65B will stand relaxed for the purpose of disqualification will do a disservice to the precedent. The High Court also says that it has transcripts, and it is a case of non-traverse. For non-traverse, you will disqualify a person?" 

Agarwal opposed staying the High Court’s judgment, arguing that he could prima facie prove defection. However, the bench ordered a stay of the ruling, considering the potential consequences.

Case Titlle: Subhranshu Roy v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly

Diary No.72372/2025