MS Shanker
The political landscape of West Bengal is witnessing tremors that few would have imagined even a couple of years ago. The latest signs of unease within the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) emerged after reports that nearly 20 of the party’s 29 Lok Sabha MPs met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and sought separate seating arrangements in Parliament.
If true, the development is politically significant. It suggests that discontent within the parliamentary wing of the party may be far deeper than the public posturing would indicate. Not surprisingly, senior TMC loyalists have rushed to dismiss the reports, arguing that the Lok Sabha Speaker lacks the authority to allot separate seating to a faction of a political party and that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
That argument, however, appears to be only partially correct.
The attempt to portray separate seating as legally impossible does not stand up to scrutiny. Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, seating arrangements are ultimately determined by the Speaker. Rule 4 explicitly states that members shall sit in such order as the Speaker may determine. This authority is broad and has historically been exercised to accommodate changing political realities inside the House.
Parliament is not a school classroom where benches are permanently assigned. Seating arrangements have frequently been adjusted to reflect new alliances, mergers, splits, and the emergence of independent groups. The Speaker’s office routinely reorganises seating whenever parliamentary arithmetic changes.
This distinction is crucial.
The issue of where MPs sit inside the Lok Sabha is entirely different from the question of whether a political split is legally recognised under the Constitution or by the Election Commission. The Election Commission deals with political parties, election symbols, and organisational disputes outside Parliament. The Speaker, on the other hand, regulates the functioning of the House, including seating arrangements.
Therefore, if a group of MPs wishes to function separately from their parent party within Parliament, the Speaker possesses the authority to consider their request and decide how they are accommodated in the House.
The more important question is not about seats but survival.
India’s anti-defection law, contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, casts a long shadow over any rebellion. Since the 91st Constitutional Amendment abolished the provision recognising a simple “split” in a legislature party, rebels no longer enjoy automatic protection.
Today, only a merger supported by at least two-thirds of the legislators enjoys immunity from disqualification. In practical terms, MPs seeking to break away must demonstrate that they satisfy this constitutional threshold. Otherwise, they risk attracting disqualification proceedings.
This is where the politics becomes fascinating.
If reports of 20 MPs seeking separate seating are accurate, the number assumes enormous significance. Twenty MPs out of 29 comfortably exceed the two-thirds mark required under the anti-defection framework. Such a figure would not merely indicate dissent; it would suggest the possibility of a constitutionally sustainable parliamentary realignment.
That perhaps explains the nervousness within sections of the TMC leadership.
By focusing solely on whether the Speaker can allot separate seats, party loyalists may be attempting to divert attention from a far more uncomfortable question: why would such a large number of MPs reportedly seek separation in the first place?
The debate, therefore, is not really about parliamentary furniture or seating charts. It is about political authority, internal democracy, and the future of a party that has dominated West Bengal politics for over a decade.
Whether the reported move materialises into a formal split remains uncertain. Parliamentary rumours often travel faster than political realities. Yet the legal position is reasonably clear. The Lok Sabha Speaker possesses the authority to determine seating arrangements. Separate seating, by itself, is not prohibited by parliamentary rules.
The real constitutional test lies elsewhere — whether any breakaway group can withstand the anti-defection law and demonstrate the numerical strength required for political survival.
For now, the controversy raises an uncomfortable possibility for the Trinamool Congress: perhaps the biggest challenge to Mamata Banerjee’s leadership is no longer coming from the BJP across the aisle, but from rumblings within her own parliamentary ranks.
