Calls for Mamata Banerjee’s removal from office intensified after senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani described her refusal to resign as “unpardonable” and a direct challenge to democratic order, deepening a constitutional confrontation in West Bengal after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s decisive Assembly election victory.Jethmalani, speaking in a television interview with Padmaja Joshi, argued that Banerjee could no longer claim the authority of chief minister once the election result had been certified. He said the Governor should formally dismiss her if she did not step down, framing the dispute not as a routine political protest but as a test of the constitutional transfer of power after an electoral verdict.
Banerjee has rejected the result and said she would not tender her resignation at Raj Bhavan. Her Trinamool Congress, which had governed West Bengal since 2011, suffered a sweeping defeat as the BJP secured a clear majority in the 294-member Assembly. The TMC, which had held 215 seats in the outgoing House, was reduced to about 80 seats, while Banerjee herself lost the Bhabanipur constituency to Suvendu Adhikari.
Her refusal has raised an uncommon question in state politics: what happens when an outgoing chief minister declines to resign after losing the mandate. Constitutional practice requires the sitting chief minister to submit a resignation to the Governor after an Assembly election when the incumbent government no longer commands majority support. The outgoing administration usually continues in caretaker capacity only until a successor is sworn in.
Article 164 of the Constitution provides that the chief minister is appointed by the Governor and that ministers hold office during the Governor’s pleasure. That provision, however, operates within a broader democratic framework shaped by majority support in the Assembly, judicial precedent and the requirement that gubernatorial discretion not become arbitrary. Where a new majority is clear, the Governor’s role is to facilitate the formation of the next government.
Banerjee’s argument rests on allegations that the election was unfair. She has claimed that about 100 seats were “stolen” from her party and alleged bias by the Election Commission, central security forces and the BJP-led Union government. Election authorities have rejected allegations of manipulation, while the BJP has said the mandate reflects voter dissatisfaction with the TMC after three consecutive terms in office.
The legal path available to Banerjee is an election petition before the appropriate court, not continued occupation of office without majority backing. A defeated candidate may challenge a result on grounds including corrupt practice, improper counting, wrongful acceptance or rejection of votes, candidate disqualification, or violation of election law affecting the outcome. Such petitions examine specific constituencies; they do not automatically suspend the formation of a new government unless a court grants relief.
Jethmalani’s intervention sharpened the political temperature because it moved beyond criticism of Banerjee’s remarks and urged direct action by the Governor. He said her position amounted to remaining in office after the electoral authority had spoken, and suggested that continued resistance would invite removal. His comments were echoed by BJP leaders who said the state could not be held hostage by an outgoing chief minister’s refusal to accept defeat.
The standoff comes as the term of the outgoing Assembly nears expiry. Once the five-year term ends, the existing House stands dissolved, and the process of swearing in newly elected legislators and inviting a leader with majority support must begin. If there is no constitutional way to maintain continuity under an outgoing chief minister who refuses to resign, President’s Rule could be considered as a temporary measure, though such an option would be politically sensitive and legally scrutinised.
West Bengal’s transition is also being watched for its administrative implications. A change of government after 15 years would mean a significant reshaping of policy priorities, bureaucratic alignments and law-and-order management in a state where elections have often been followed by violence and intense partisan mobilisation. Election authorities have directed strict action against violence and vandalism as political tensions remain high.