Mamata faction writes to LS, RS heads on exclusion from chairing committees

1. At a Glance

• The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) faction loyal to Mamata Banerjee has formally protested to the presiding officers of both Houses that it was given the chair of no Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee (DRSC) [1].
• Its main objection is to the appointment of rebel Trinamool MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar as chairperson of the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers. She claims to belong to a different party through a "merger", and that merger is being contested in pending disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: the case brings together several examinable areas: the parliamentary committee system, the anti-defection law (especially the merger exception), the discretion of presiding officers, and the role of the Opposition in parliamentary oversight. All of these fall under GS-II.

2. Why in the News

• 3 October 2026 (Saturday): The Mamata-backed AITC faction wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan protesting its exclusion from DRSC chairpersonships [1].
• The Lok Sabha leader, Abhishek Banerjee, and the Rajya Sabha leader, Derek O'Brien, sent separate letters to the presiding officers of their own Houses [1].
• Abhishek Banerjee asked under which party affiliation the chair of the Chemicals and Fertilizers committee had been given to Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar [1].
• The report appeared in The Hindu, Chennai edition, 4 October 2026, page 15 [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• The political context: The article calls Mamata Banerjee the "former West Bengal Chief Minister" and describes the AITC as split, with one faction backing her and a rebel group [1].
• The rebel's claim: Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar says she is affiliated with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI) through a "purported merger" [1].
• The NCPI link: The NCPI is reportedly associated with the NDA [1].
• The AITC's earlier grievance: Derek O'Brien wrote that in 2019, when the Trinamool was the third-largest party in the House, it was still denied a committee chair [1].
• Origin of the committee system (textbook background, not verified this session) [2]:
• DRSCs were created in 1993. The number of committees went from 17 to 24 in 2004.

• The aim was detailed scrutiny of Demands for Grants, Bills, annual reports and long-term policy of ministries.

• Origin of the anti-defection law (textbook background, not verified this session) [2]:

• The Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985.
• The 91st Amendment, 2003, removed the "split" (one-third) exception.
• Only the merger exception (Para 4) remains. It requires at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party to agree to the merger.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Lok Sabha Speaker (Oct 2026)	Om Birla [1]
Rajya Sabha Chairman (Oct 2026)	C.P. Radhakrishnan, who is also the Vice-President, since the Chairman holds office ex officio [1]; [2] for the ex officio rule
AITC Lok Sabha leader	Abhishek Banerjee [1]
AITC Rajya Sabha leader	Derek O'Brien [1]
Committee at the centre of the dispute	Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers, a DRSC [1]
Disputed chairperson	Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Lok Sabha MP and rebel Trinamool leader [1]
Party claimed by her	Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), through a disputed merger [1]
Legal basis of the dispute	Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law). Disqualification proceedings are pending [1]
Number of DRSCs	24 (textbook background) [2]
Membership of each DRSC	31 members: 21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha (textbook background) [2]
Which House administers them	16 under Lok Sabha and 8 under Rajya Sabha (textbook background) [2]
Who appoints the chair	The Speaker or Chairman nominates the chairperson from among committee members. By convention, chairs are shared among parties roughly by their strength in the House. This is a convention, not a statutory entitlement (textbook background) [2]
Term of a DRSC	Up to one year. Ministers cannot be members (textbook background) [2]
Who decides disqualification	The Speaker or Chairman (Para 6, Tenth Schedule). The decision is subject to judicial review under Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) (textbook background) [2]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The AITC argues that the NCPI's association with the NDA cannot settle the question of her party affiliation under the Tenth Schedule. In its view, that question "requires a decision in the pending proceedings" [1].
• The merger test: Para 4 protects a member only if the original party has merged and at least two-thirds of the legislature party agree to it. Whether that test is met is exactly what the Speaker has to decide (textbook background) [2].
• Allotting a chair before the disqualification petition is decided effectively accepts the member's claimed affiliation in advance. This links to the Supreme Court's concern about Speakers delaying disqualification decisions. In Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020), the Court said such decisions should ordinarily come within three months (textbook background) [2].

Governance / Parliamentary Ethics

• The AITC calls the appointment "contrary to parliamentary propriety" and says it "cannot be treated as a chairmanship allotted to AITC" [1].
• The rules leave room for discretion: chair allocation depends on the presiding officer's discretion and inter-party convention. This raises questions about the neutrality of the presiding officer.
• Opposition oversight is at stake: if an Opposition party holds no chair, it has less influence over detailed oversight of the executive, which is the main job of DRSCs.

Political / Federal

• How a split in a regional party is treated in Parliament affects party discipline and the balance between the ruling coalition and the Opposition inside committees [1].
• O'Brien's reference to 2019 suggests the AITC sees repeated exclusion from committee chairs, not a single episode [1].

Historical / Comparative

• There are earlier cases of disputed factional splits, such as the Shiv Sena (2022) and NCP (2023) splits. In those cases, the ECI's symbol decisions and the Speakers' disqualification rulings came at different times (background) [2].
• In Westminster practice, the House itself often elects committee chairs (for example, UK Select Committee chairs since 2010). In India, chairs are nominated by the presiding officer (background) [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2026: The AITC split into a Mamata-backed faction and a rebel group. Rebel MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar claims affiliation with the NCPI through a merger, and disqualification proceedings are pending [1].
• 2026: The NCPI is reported to be associated with the NDA [1].
• Around late September / early October 2026: DRSCs were reconstituted. Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar was named chairperson of the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers. The Mamata-backed AITC was given no chair [1].
• 3 October 2026: Abhishek Banerjee wrote to Om Birla, and Derek O'Brien wrote to C.P. Radhakrishnan, in protest [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Chairpersons of DRSCs are nominated by the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha). They are not elected by the House [2].
• There are 24 DRSCs: 16 serviced by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and 8 by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat [2].
• Each DRSC has 31 members: 21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha [2].
• Ministers cannot be members of a DRSC [2].
• The DRSC system started in 1993 [2].
• The Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers is a Lok Sabha-serviced DRSC. In October 2026 it was chaired by Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar [1]; [2] for which House services it.
• The Tenth Schedule was inserted by the 52nd Amendment, 1985 [2].
• The 91st Amendment, 2003, deleted the "split" exception (Para 3) [2].
• The merger exception (Para 4) requires two-thirds of the members of the legislature party [2].
• Who decides disqualification under the Tenth Schedule: the Speaker or Chairman, not the Election Commission. The decision is open to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992) [2].
• The Vice-President is the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. In October 2026 this was C.P. Radhakrishnan [1]; [2] for the ex officio rule.
• Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI): the party that rebel AITC MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar claims to have merged into [1].

8. Why Giving Her the Chair Seems to Decide the Case Early

• The same office gives the chair and also judges the defection case
• Under the Tenth Schedule, the presiding officer acts as a tribunal (a body that decides a dispute like a court) on disqualification petitions [3].
• That same office also picks committee chairs, and here it counted Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar outside the AITC [1].

• So before ruling on the case, the office has already behaved as if her "merger" claim is valid. That is why the AITC says the question "requires a decision in the pending proceedings" first [1].

• The law sets no time limit, so waiting helps the defector

• The Tenth Schedule does not say how quickly a disqualification petition must be decided [3].
• The Supreme Court has said these petitions must be decided within three months of filing [3]. But that is a court direction. It is not written into the Schedule.

• While the petition waits, the member keeps her seat and now also holds a chair. Waiting has a clear benefit for one side.

• This has happened before

• Manipur: an MLA elected on a Congress ticket joined the BJP and became a minister. The Speaker did not decide the petitions against him. The Supreme Court removed him from the cabinet in March 2020. The Speaker disqualified him only about 10 days later [3].
• Telangana: after 2014, 26 opposition MLAs defected to the ruling party. The Speaker did not decide any petition before the Assembly was dissolved [3].
• PRS notes that such delays "put their allegiance into question". In other words, people start to doubt the presiding officer's neutrality [3].

9. Why One Lost Chair Hurts More When Committees Already See Fewer Bills

• Committee scrutiny of Bills has dropped sharply
• Share of Bills sent to committees: 60% in the 14th Lok Sabha (2004–09) and 71% in the 15th [4].

• It fell to 27% in the 16th Lok Sabha [4] and 16% in the 17th [5].

• Why this makes each chair matter more

• DRSCs (Department-Related Standing Committees) can also choose their own subjects to examine, apart from the Bills sent to them. That route stays open even when few Bills come in.
• A chair held by an Opposition party is one of the few places where the Opposition helps decide what gets examined.

• If a party with seats in both Houses gets no chair at all, it loses that role. This is not just a matter of prestige.

• The AITC says this keeps happening

• O'Brien's letter says the party was denied a chair in 2019 too, when it was the third-largest party [1].
• So the complaint is about how chairs are shared under convention, not only about this one split.

10. The Other Side: Has the Presiding Officer Actually Broken Any Rule?

• The strongest argument for the Speaker
• Until she is disqualified, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar is a lawful MP with full rights. Chairs are nominated at the presiding officer's discretion, and no written rule promises any party a chair [2].
• The presiding officer had to put her in some party for the allocation. Treating her as AITC would also have decided the case early, just in the other direction.

• Defection law also supports the Speaker on one point. A larger party drawing in two-thirds of another party's legislators is something the merger exception allows [6].

• What this argument gets right

• Formally, no rule was broken. The AITC's own word is "propriety" (proper conduct), not illegality [1].

• It is also true that any allocation made while the case is pending takes some position on her status.

• Where the argument falls short

• There was a neutral option. The presiding officer could have left her out of both parties' share of chairs until the petition was decided. Instead, she was given a chair.
• Being "neutral" is not enough when the same office also controls the timing. If it can both delay the petition and act on one side's claim meanwhile, the outcome leans one way [3].
• Court review comes late. Even a quick decision can stay stuck in court for years. After the Rajya Sabha Chairman decided Sharad Yadav's case within three months in 2017, the challenge was still pending in the Delhi High Court when PRS wrote about it [6].

11. What Parliament Could Change

• Parliament should write the three-month deadline into the Tenth Schedule
• At present, the deadline exists only as a Supreme Court direction [3].

• If the deadline were in the law, a chair could not be given while a long case is still pending.

• The Rules Committees of both Houses should write down how chairs are shared

• Today, chairs are shared by convention. The presiding officer nominates them, roughly in line with party strength [2].

• A written formula in the Rules of Procedure would give each party a chair based on its strength. It should also say that members facing a pending Tenth Schedule petition are not counted for any party until the case is decided.

• Move the disqualification decision away from the presiding officer

• The Law Commission (170th Report) and the NCRWC suggested that the President or Governor should decide, acting on the Election Commission's advice [2].

• This would separate the person who rules on the defection from the person who shares out chairs.

• Consider electing committee chairs

• Since 2010, the UK House of Commons elects its Select Committee chairs instead of having them nominated [2].
• In India, where chairs are nominated, an election by the House would take this choice out of the presiding officer's hands.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bills sent to committees: 60% (14th Lok Sabha) and 71% (15th), down to 27% (16th) and 16% (17th) [4] [5]
• Data: Telangana: 26 opposition MLAs defected after 2014. No petition was decided before the Assembly was dissolved [3]
• Report/Committee: Law Commission 170th Report and NCRWC: disqualification to be decided by the President/Governor on Election Commission advice [2]
• Law/Case: Tenth Schedule, Para 4 (merger exception) and Para 6 (presiding officer decides) [2]. Supreme Court: disqualification petitions to be decided within three months [3]. Manipur minister removed by the Supreme Court in March 2020 [3]
• Comparison: UK House of Commons has elected its Select Committee chairs since 2010. India's are nominated by the presiding officer [2]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II, Parliament and State Legislatures: structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers and privileges.
• GS-II, Indian Constitution: amendments and significant provisions (Tenth Schedule).
• GS-II, Functioning of the executive and the legislature: accountability.
• GS-IV (minor link): institutional impartiality and propriety in public office.
• Possible question stems: 1. Department-Related Standing Committees are the backbone of parliamentary oversight, yet their composition depends on conventions rather than rules. Critically examine. (250 words) 2. The anti-defection law's merger exception has become a route to legitimise defections. Discuss in light of recent splits in regional parties, and suggest reforms. (250 words) 3. Discuss the role of the presiding officer as an impartial arbiter in a polarised legislature, with reference to disqualification petitions and committee allocations. (150 words)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Tenth Schedule and its amendments (1985, 2003): this is the legal basis of the affiliation dispute.
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992) and Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020): these cases set out judicial review of Speakers' decisions and the time limits for deciding them.
• Committee system (Financial, DRSC, ad hoc, JPC): needed to place DRSCs among the other committees.
• Public Accounts Committee chair convention: the Opposition traditionally chairs the PAC, which is a useful contrast with DRSC allocation.
• Office of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker vacancy (Article 93): another debate about the neutrality of the presiding officer.
• Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order, 1968: the ECI decides which faction is the real party, which is separate from the Speaker's disqualification decision.
• Law Commission (170th Report) and NCRWC proposals: these recommended moving the power to decide disqualification to the President or Governor acting on ECI advice.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up the ECI and the Speaker: the ECI decides symbol disputes under the Symbols Order, while the Speaker or Chairman decides disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
• Thinking the "split" exception still exists: it was deleted in 2003. Only the merger exception (two-thirds) remains.
• Believing committee chairs are elected: DRSC chairs are nominated by the presiding officer. Giving chairs in proportion to party strength is only a convention.
• Wrong membership numbers: the correct figure is 31 members (21 + 10). Do not confuse this with the PAC's 22 (15 + 7).
• Assuming all DRSCs are under the Lok Sabha: 8 of the 24 are under the Rajya Sabha. Each chair is nominated by the presiding officer of the House that services that committee.