Examine the interplay between the Election Commission's powers over party symbols and the Speaker's powers under the Tenth Schedule during intra-party splits.

When a party splits, two separate authorities act on the same facts. The Election Commission (EC) decides which rival group is the party under Para 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968 [1]. The Speaker, acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, decides whether individual legislators are disqualified [2]. The two work in parallel and are not coordinated, so they often produce conflicting outcomes.

Distinct domains

• EC: When rival sections each claim to be a recognised party, the EC decides that one group, or none, is that party. Its decision is binding [1]. It covers the party organisation, the symbol and recognition.
• Speaker: The Speaker decides disqualification for voluntarily giving up membership or for defying the whip. The only protection is a merger backed by two-thirds of the legislators [2]. It covers the individual member's seat.

Points of friction

• Timing mismatch: The Tenth Schedule sets no time limit, and courts can step in only after the Speaker decides [2]. The EC, by contrast, can pass fast interim orders. In West Bengal, it froze the TMC symbol on 17 September 2026 while disqualification petitions were still pending before the Speaker [3].
• Strategic sequencing: Counsel told the Supreme Court this was a "pattern": the Speaker sits on the petitions while rebels get interim relief from the EC, risking "political havoc" [3].
• Circular outcomes: If the EC treats the rebel faction as the "real" party, the rebels' defection starts to look like loyalty. Meanwhile, the Speaker's delay lets disputed MLAs keep voting and shaping the numbers in the House.
• Partisanship: Speakers usually come from the ruling side. In Manipur, a petition stayed pending for three years until the Supreme Court removed the minister in 2020 [4].

Judicial balancing

• Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020) set a "reasonable time" of three months for such decisions. The Supreme Court asked the Bengal Speaker to decide by 8 October 2026, but only "hoped" the Speaker would follow the ruling [3].
• The timeline is workable: Chairman Venkaiah Naidu decided the Sharad Yadav case in three months [4].

Way forward

• Write the three-month limit into the Schedule [4].
• Follow expert committees' advice to have the President or Governor decide on the EC's advice [2]. This would bring the two processes onto one track.

The EC's symbol power and the Speaker's disqualification power were meant to complement each other, but delay has made them rival tools in factional fights. Time-bound, neutral adjudication that is coordinated with the EC would restore the Tenth Schedule's purpose of stable, accountable representative democracy.