ESPN DeportesBarça: "Julián Álvarez es el pasado", dice DecoPunchItori plant drives Dangote Cement’s export expansionESPNFollow live: Penix finds Hooper for TD as Falcons extend lead over PackersThe Jerusalem PostPezeshkian says he met with Khamenei face to face, supreme leader healthy, giving direction한겨레‘억대 수익’ 탈세 유튜버 17명, 지난해 239억 추징당했다InquirerFrom Araneta to Baguio: Blessed Fulton Sheen’s ties to PHUOLParticipante do 1º pleito com voto feminino no Brasil, eleitora de 100 anos tende a votar em LulaSözcüAllah’a emanet yaşıyoruzG1Veja o que fizeram os candidatos ao governo do AM nesta quinta-feira (24)ABC News (Australia)Thousands of Queensland child safety workers to walk off the jobSportstarAsian Games 2026 Live Updates, Day 7: India confirms mixed doubles medals in table tennis and squash; Suruchi-Kamaljeet qualify for 10m air pistol mixed team final; badminton scoresLa NaciónTrabajaba con su tractor, detectó algo que brillaba en la tierra y lo que encontró le cambió la vida para siempre
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Friday, September 25, 2026

TMC split row: SC asks EC for timeframe to decide party name, symbol dispute

Translate

SC seeks timeframe from EC on deciding TMC factional feud

NEW DELHI: Observing that the dispute between two rival factions of All India Trinamool Congress claiming the party name and symbol should be adjudicated within reasonable time, Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission to give a timeframe to decide the matter.While hearing a plea filed by former CM

Mamata Banerjee

challenging EC's interim order freezing the party symbol, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said early adjudication was desirable and the poll panel could conduct day-to-day hearings. "We have seen what delay does in the Shiv Sena (factional dispute) case," the bench said.Appearing for Banerjee, advocate Kapil Sibal said he was not seeking a stay on EC's interim order as bypolls had commenced.

The bench said it could not touch the order during the election process.Sibal, however, questioned the Election Commission's intention in passing the interim order during elections, saying it left his client without a remedy, and sought a final order by the end of Oct. He argued that no reason was given for the interim order and no prima facie view was taken. Sibal said the order could have been passed before the election, when his client would have had a remedy.

Mamata and Ritabrata factions are at loggerheads, claiming to be the original party. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and N K Kaul, for the rival faction, told the bench that EC should be given breathing space. They said a one-month period was too short to decide the issue as it would require submission of affidavits and evidence.The court asked EC's counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu to take instructions on how much time it would take to decide the dispute, and brief the court. "Find out, for final adjudication, how much time are you expected to take? A reasonable time in which parties are given fair opportunity and you have time to apply your mind... but not too long," the bench told him and posted the case for Sept 28.

View the original on Times of India →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.