The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of the Calcutta High Court judgment that had disqualified Trinamool Congress leader and former BJP MLA Mukul Roy from the Assembly under the anti-defection law, as the country's top court prima facie felt the high court acted erroneously.
The Supreme Court passed the order on an appeal filed by Mukul Roy’s son Subhranshu Roy on the ground that his father was ailing and bedridden in a hospital.
While staying the November 13, 2025, judgment of the high court, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to Opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari and BJP leader Ambika Roy on whose appeal the high court had passed the impugned order. The duo have been asked to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks.
In a first court-intervened action of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, better known as the anti-defection law, was laid down, Roy had lost his membership for defection. Roy, who had criss-crossed between Trinamooland the BJP before falling seriously ill, leaving both parties confused regarding his current position, is no longer the Krishnanagar Uttar MLA.
A high court division bench headed by Justice Debangshu Basak had last year set aside Speaker Biman Banerjee's decision that Roy was still in the BJP and disqualified him as an MLA.
Roy left Trinamool in 2017 and joined the BJP. He won the Krishnanagar Uttar seat in the 2021 elections as a BJP candidate but switched to Trinamool on June 2021 in an elaborately televised ceremony at the party headquarters.
On June 8, 2022, Speaker Banerjee declared that there was not enough evidence to prove that Roy had left the BJP. The Speaker had rejected the plea on the ground that the requirements for substantiating the allegations based on social media required corroboration under 65B of the Indian Evidence Act relating to proof of electronic documents, as the proceedings under the anti-defection law are “akin” to criminal proceedings.
However, the high court had reversed the Speaker’s decision and disqualified Mukul Roy, aggrieved by which he had filed the present appeal through his son.
On Friday, advocate Preetika Dwivedi, who appeared for Subhranshu Roy, said the high court had erroneously set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Speaker, who was vested with the power of a tribunal to adjudicate the disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law. Despite the Speaker rightly holding that the requisite electronic evidence not being produced as mandated under Section 65B, the high court reversed the findings on mere preponderance of probabilities.
Senior advocate Gaurava Agarwal opposed any stay of the high court judgment on the ground that there was no error and it was the Speaker who had committed an error by rejecting the disqualification plea.
However, the CJI orally observed: “See in this AI era, anybody’s face can be used in a video.. we don't know whose face etc is there. Electronic evidence has to be tested on the basis of evidence and compliance of Section 65B….”
The other judge on the bench Justice Joymalya Bagchi also cited earlier judgments of the Supreme Court to note that the rules of electronic evidence as mandated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Agarwal objected to the son of Mukul Roy filing the present appeal on the grounds of locus standi, but the CJI brushed aside the same, saying there was no illegality in such an appeal being filed on his behalf when Mukul Roy is bedridden.
The senior counsel raised apprehension that Roy may contest the ensuing elections since the present assembly term would come to an end shortly.