23.07.2026 rpan/06 WPA (P) 351 of 2026 Gautam Ghosh & Another – Versus – The Union of India & Others Mr. Golam Mastafa, Mr. Tara Shankar Samanta, Mr. K. A. Iqbal, … for the Petitioners. Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Mr. Shailendra Kr. Mishra … for the UoI. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Ms. Puja Sonkar … for the State/Respondents. The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents and other Constitutional authorities ‘to look into the grievances as raised by the petitioners and thereby take immediate steps for canceling the membership of the elected members who would changed the political Party or act against the wish of the political party from which they were elected ’. Mr. Mastafa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, who claim themselves to be office bearers of the West Bengal Freedom Fighters Organization, submits that after being elected as members of a particular political party on the mandate of the people at large, the said members are joining hands with political parties against whom they contested in election. The elected members are thus betraying the choice of the people. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted several representations but in vain and as such they have been constrained to prefer the present writ petition. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries and Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents deny and dispute the contention of Mr. Mastafa and submits that no substantial public interest is involved and that as such no interference is called for. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The Anti-Defection Law in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution operates as a constitutional mechanism designed to penalize legislators who switch political allegiance post-election, thereby safeguarding the electoral mandate and maintaining the stability of elected Governments. Defining the adjudicatory mechanism appropriate 2 rules have been framed. The allegations made in the PIL are omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed. There are existing statutory provisions to address the issue of the defection. In view thereof, no interference is called in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 3