What Is Different About the TMC Symbol Freeze From the NCP, Shiv Sena Cases?
TMC's frozen name and symbol revive questions raised by NCP and Shiv Sena splits, but its organisational dispute presents a different challenge.
By Pranjal Gupta
New Delhi, September 18: The Election Commission's decision to freeze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its “Flowers and Grass” symbol has taken the Trinamool Congress' internal crisis into unfamiliar territory.
For the first time since the party was founded in 1998, neither faction can contest an election using the TMC's established electoral identity.
The immediate arrangement is temporary. On Friday, the Election Commission allotted the Mamata Banerjee-led faction the name “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “Football Player” symbol, while the rival Arup Roy-led faction was allotted “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the “Envelope” symbol.
The two factions will use these identities for the October 6 West Bengal Assembly bypolls, including Nandigram and Rejinagar, while the Election Commission proceeds with the substantive dispute under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
But this is where the TMC case begins to diverge from the better-known Shiv Sena and NCP symbol battles.
The Freeze is Not the Final Verdict
The most important point is that the Election Commission has not yet decided who gets the original TMC name and symbol.
Its September 17 interim order said there were two rival groups claiming to represent the recognised All India Trinamool Congress and that the matter required a substantive determination under Paragraph 15.
The freeze was therefore designed to put the rival groups on an “even keel” for the upcoming bypolls rather than settle the underlying dispute immediately.
That distinction matters.
In practical terms, the twin flowers and grass symbol is off the ballot for the moment. But legally and organisationally, the larger fight over who represents the recognised party is still open.
So, What Happened in Shiv Sena?
The Shiv Sena dispute provides the closest recent precedent.
After the 2022 split between the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions, the Election Commission froze the Shiv Sena name and Bow and Arrow symbol ahead of the Andheri East bypoll.
The two factions were given temporary names and symbols.
The EC later examined the competing organisational and legislative claims and, in February 2023, recognised the Shinde faction as the Shiv Sena and allotted it the Bow and Arrow symbol.
The decision was particularly significant because the organisational test did not produce a conclusive answer. The EC therefore relied heavily on the strength of the factions among elected representatives.
The Shinde camp had 40 of 55 Shiv Sena MLAs and 13 of 18 Lok Sabha MPs. The EC also examined the votes secured by those legislators in the elections they had contested on the Shiv Sena ticket.
That precedent is now particularly relevant to TMC — because the Trinamool dispute also contains a sharp divide between organisational control and legislative strength.
NCP was Different - And Numbers Became Central
The NCP case followed a somewhat different path.
After the 2023 split between Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar, the Election Commission eventually recognised the Ajit Pawar faction as the NCP and allotted it the Clock symbol.
The Commission again considered the party constitution, organisational structure and legislative strength.
But the numbers presented a relatively clear picture. Of the 81 legislators considered in the dispute, 57 submitted affidavits supporting the Ajit Pawar faction, while 28 backed Sharad Pawar's side, with a small number supporting both.
The Sharad Pawar faction subsequently continued under a new identity - Nationalist Congress Party–Sharadchandra Pawar - with a different symbol.
In other words, the NCP dispute eventually produced a relatively clear division: one side retained the original party identity while the other continued under a new name.
TMC's Problem is More Complicated
The TMC dispute has one feature that makes it particularly difficult for the Election Commission: the legislative wing and the organisational structure are pulling in different directions.
The rebel camp has claimed substantial support among TMC legislators and has established control over the party's legislative wing.
The dispute, however, is not simply about who has more MLAs. At the centre of the case is the validity of the TMC's organisational structure and, particularly, the tenure of its National Working Committee.
The rebel faction has argued that the committee's three-year tenure expired in February 2025 and that subsequent organisational decisions lacked authority.
The Mamata Banerjee faction disputes that interpretation, maintaining that amendments extended the committee's tenure to five years, meaning the existing structure remains valid.
That creates a fundamental question:
If one faction has the numbers in the legislature but the other claims control of the party's recognised organisational machinery, which one represents the political party?
That question was less straightforward in the NCP case and is precisely why the TMC dispute could take a more complicated route.
The Biggest Difference: Mamata Banerjee is Still at the Centre
There is another important distinction.
The TMC was built around Mamata Banerjee, who remains an active political figure and continues to lead one of the two competing factions.
The rebellion itself has also been unusual in its public positioning. The dissident camp has challenged the organisational authority of the Mamata faction while continuing to frame its dispute around the party's internal structure rather than simply announcing the creation of an entirely separate political organisation.
That makes the fight not merely a battle over a symbol but a contest over the institutional identity of a party and who has the authority to speak in its name.
The distinction between the party's legislative wing and its organisational wing could therefore become central to the EC's eventual decision.
And There is a New Legal Complication
The TMC dispute is unfolding at an interesting moment because the Supreme Court is itself examining the earlier Shiv Sena symbol decision.
During a hearing on September 17, the court questioned the reliance on legislative majority as a way of determining party identity, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi raising the issue of whether legislators who change allegiance after being elected can continue to represent the votes they originally received as members of another party.
The observation adds a fresh layer to the TMC dispute because the Election Commission's established approach has often involved examining the strength of rival factions among elected representatives when organisational evidence is inconclusive.
The Supreme Court has not, however, delivered a final ruling overturning the EC's approach in the Shiv Sena matter. Therefore, the precise effect of the ongoing proceedings on the TMC case remains uncertain.
Why the Bypolls Matter
The immediate test is no longer theoretical.
The Election Commission has now given the two camps different names and symbols, meaning voters in the October 6 bypolls will encounter competing identities rather than the familiar TMC symbol.
The Mamata faction will appear as Mamata All India Trinamool Congress - Football Player.
The rival camp will appear as Democratic Trinamool Congress - Envelope.
That creates a very different electoral environment from previous factional disputes, where the battle over the symbol was itself important but temporary identities were used mainly as a bridge until the EC's final decision.
Here, the temporary identities themselves will enter the electoral contest.
The results may subsequently become part of the political narrative around the competing factions, although the bypoll outcome by itself does not automatically determine the EC's legal decision on ownership of the recognised party.
Will the Freeze be the Real Deal-Breaker?
The immediate effect is significant because the TMC's established electoral identity has been removed from the ballot at precisely the point when the party is fighting to establish which faction represents it.
But the real break would come only if the interim arrangement becomes a lasting organisational division.
That depends on what happens next.
The Election Commission still has to examine the rival claims under Paragraph 15, including the party constitution, organisational records and the support claimed by the competing factions.
The Shiv Sena and NCP cases show that the Commission can ultimately award an original party name and symbol to one faction, while the other survives under a different identity.
The TMC case, however, carries an additional complication: the factional numbers in the legislature and the competing claims over the party's organisational machinery may not point in the same direction.
That is what could make this dispute different.
The football player and envelope are therefore only the first visible signs of the split.
The bigger fight is still over the name, the twin flowers and grass - and the organisational structure behind them.
