New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a landmark judgment of the Calcutta High Court that had disqualified senior West Bengal politician Mukul Roy as a member of the state legislative assembly for defecting from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC). The apex court’s intervention has put on hold, for now, what was widely seen as a precedent-setting decision in the interpretation and application of India’s anti-defection law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed the Calcutta High Court’s order dated November 13, 2025, which had declared Roy’s assembly membership invalid. The stay was reported by news agency PTI on Friday, January 16, 2026. While the Supreme Court has not yet released a detailed order explaining the reasons for the stay, the move effectively restores Roy’s status as an MLA until the matter is finally adjudicated.

Background of the case

Mukul Roy’s political journey has been marked by high-profile switches between rival parties in West Bengal. Once considered a key strategist and organisational pillar of the Trinamool Congress, Roy left the party in 2017 to join the BJP, emerging as one of its most prominent faces in the state. His defection at the time was seen as a major blow to the TMC and a significant boost for the BJP’s expansion plans in Bengal.

In the 2021 West Bengal assembly elections, Roy contested on a BJP ticket from the Krishnanagar North constituency. He won the seat in May 2021, even as the BJP suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, which returned to power with a comfortable majority.

Barely a month after the election results, in June 2021, Roy quit the BJP and rejoined the TMC. The move reignited intense political controversy and set the stage for a prolonged legal battle over whether his switch violated the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law.

The Calcutta High Court’s unprecedented ruling

The matter eventually reached the Calcutta High Court, which delivered a far-reaching judgment on November 13, 2025. In that ruling, the high court disqualified Mukul Roy as an MLA, holding that his defection from the BJP to the TMC attracted the provisions of the anti-defection law.

What made the decision particularly significant was the manner in which it was delivered. Traditionally, questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule are decided by the Speaker of the legislative assembly concerned. Courts have generally exercised restraint in directly disqualifying lawmakers, limiting themselves to reviewing the Speaker’s decisions or intervening in cases of procedural impropriety or undue delay.

In Roy’s case, however, the Calcutta High Court directly exercised what it described as its constitutional authority to disqualify an elected representative. Legal observers noted that this was the first time a high court had taken such a step under the anti-defection framework, bypassing the Speaker’s office altogether.

The high court reasoned that extraordinary circumstances justified its intervention, particularly given the prolonged pendency of the matter and the need to uphold the constitutional mandate against political defections. The ruling was hailed by some as a bold assertion of judicial power to enforce constitutional morality, while others criticised it as an encroachment into the legislative domain.

Supreme Court’s intervention

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the high court’s order has now paused the immediate consequences of that ruling. With the stay in place, Mukul Roy will continue to be treated as a sitting MLA from Krishnanagar North until further orders.

The apex court bench did not, at this stage, express any final view on the correctness of the high court’s reasoning or conclusions. The stay is an interim measure, meant to preserve the status quo while the Supreme Court examines the legal questions raised by the case.

Further details of the Supreme Court’s order, including the schedule for a full hearing and the issues it intends to consider, are awaited. However, the very act of granting a stay suggests that the court sees substantial questions of law that merit careful scrutiny.

The anti-defection law and its challenges

Enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, the anti-defection law was designed to curb political instability caused by frequent party-switching by elected representatives. Under the Tenth Schedule, an MLA or MP can be disqualified if they voluntarily give up the membership of the party on whose ticket they were elected, or if they vote against the party’s whip without permission.

Over the years, the law has been criticised for both overreach and under-enforcement. On the one hand, it is accused of stifling dissent within parties and reducing legislators to mere numbers. On the other, delays and inaction by Speakers—who often belong to the ruling party—have undermined its effectiveness, allowing defectors to continue in office for long periods.

The Mukul Roy case sits squarely at the intersection of these debates. Supporters of the Calcutta High Court’s intervention argue that judicial action was necessary because the Speaker’s office had failed to act decisively. Critics counter that allowing courts to directly disqualify legislators could upset the delicate balance of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.

Political ramifications in West Bengal

The Supreme Court’s stay has immediate political implications in West Bengal. Roy’s return to the TMC in 2021 was symbolically significant, as it reinforced Mamata Banerjee’s narrative of political resilience and the BJP’s inability to hold on to its leaders in the state.

Had the high court’s disqualification order remained in force, it would have strengthened the BJP’s claim that the TMC benefited from defections that violated constitutional norms. The stay, however, gives the ruling party breathing space and ensures that Roy’s presence in the assembly is not disrupted in the short term.

For the BJP, the case remains an opportunity to push for stricter enforcement of the anti-defection law, especially in states where it accuses rival parties of encouraging opportunistic switches. The final outcome in the Supreme Court could either bolster or weaken such arguments.

Broader constitutional significance

Beyond West Bengal, the case is being closely watched for its broader constitutional implications. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the Calcutta High Court’s approach, it could open the door for greater judicial intervention in anti-defection matters, particularly in cases of prolonged inaction by Speakers.

Conversely, if the apex court sets aside the high court’s ruling, it may reaffirm the primacy of the Speaker’s role under the Tenth Schedule, while possibly laying down stricter guidelines to ensure timely decisions on disqualification petitions.

Either way, the judgment is likely to have a lasting impact on how India’s anti-defection law is interpreted and enforced.

What lies ahead

For now, the Supreme Court’s stay means that Mukul Roy continues as an MLA, and the high court’s unprecedented exercise of power remains under examination. As further details of the apex court’s order emerge and the case moves toward a full hearing, legal and political circles alike will be watching closely.

The eventual verdict is expected to clarify not only Roy’s political future but also the contours of judicial authority in enforcing constitutional discipline in an era of frequent and often contentious political defections.