TMC expels Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee as West Bengal forged signature row deepens

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) has expelled Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee from the party amid a widening forged signature controversy linked to a West Bengal Assembly letter on legislative leadership positions, turning an internal party dispute into a larger test of political discipline, legislative procedure and institutional credibility in West Bengal.

The expulsions were announced on June 1, 2026, with the Trinamool Congress accusing Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee of anti-party activities and conduct prejudicial to the organisation’s interests. Republic World reported that the party expelled the two legislators for six years, while other reports said the action removed the two leaders from the party’s primary membership with immediate effect.

The controversy centres on allegations that signatures of Trinamool Congress legislators were forged or disputed in a letter connected to the party’s nomination process for legislative positions in the West Bengal Assembly. The issue has already drawn the attention of the Criminal Investigation Department of West Bengal Police, which has recorded statements of several Trinamool Congress legislators and formed a Special Investigation Team to examine the alleged signature discrepancies.

The row has also drawn in Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, who was summoned by the Criminal Investigation Department but sought more time citing health concerns. The investigation and the expulsions have intensified scrutiny of the Trinamool Congress at a sensitive moment for West Bengal politics, where internal discipline, legislative recognition and opposition positioning have become closely linked.

The political consequence is clear. What began as a dispute over signatures on an Assembly-linked letter has become a broader test of whether the Trinamool Congress can control internal dissent, manage a criminal investigation and prevent the forged signature row from becoming a larger institutional crisis.

Why did the Trinamool Congress expel Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee amid the forged signature controversy?

The Trinamool Congress expelled Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee after accusing the two leaders of anti-party activities linked to the forged signature controversy. The party’s action came after both legislators were connected to objections over alleged signature discrepancies in a letter related to legislative leadership choices in the West Bengal Assembly.

The confirmed development is that the Trinamool Congress removed Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee from the party’s primary membership. Republic World reported that the expulsion period was six years. The institutional position of the party is that the two leaders acted against party interests at a time when the signature dispute had already become politically damaging.

The broader consequence is that the Trinamool Congress has chosen disciplinary action rather than accommodation. That matters because the party is facing a controversy that directly touches legislative procedure and internal unity. Expelling two sitting legislators sends a clear message to other party members, but it also risks turning the expelled leaders into public symbols of dissent.

The decision may therefore have two effects at once. It may help the Trinamool Congress project control over internal discipline. It may also deepen questions about why the signature dispute escalated to the point where expulsions became necessary.

How did the West Bengal Assembly forged signature row become a wider political crisis for the Trinamool Congress?

The forged signature row became a wider political crisis because the dispute is tied to a formal legislative process, not only an internal party disagreement. The controversy involves allegations that signatures of several Trinamool Congress legislators were forged or disputed in a letter connected to the party’s nominees for Assembly leadership positions.

The confirmed institutional response is that the Criminal Investigation Department of West Bengal Police has recorded statements of several Trinamool Congress legislators and has formed a Special Investigation Team. That changes the nature of the dispute. A party disagreement becomes more serious when police investigators begin recording statements and examining whether signatures on official or Assembly-linked documents were genuine.

The broader consequence is that the controversy may affect the credibility of legislative procedure in West Bengal. Party letters used for leadership recognition, nomination or legislative positioning depend on authenticity. If signatures are disputed, the question is no longer only whether one group inside a party disagrees with another. The question becomes whether documents submitted within the Assembly process can be trusted.

For the Trinamool Congress, this is especially sensitive because the party is trying to manage the political fallout while also responding to an investigation. If the investigation remains active, the controversy could continue producing headlines even after disciplinary action against Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee.

Why is the Criminal Investigation Department probe important in the Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee case?

The Criminal Investigation Department probe is important because it gives the forged signature row a formal investigative track. The Criminal Investigation Department has recorded statements of Trinamool Congress legislators and formed a Special Investigation Team, indicating that the case is being treated as more than a routine internal complaint.

The confirmed investigation includes statements from multiple legislators and examination of alleged signature discrepancies. The institutional objective is to determine whether signatures linked to the Assembly letter were genuine, mismatched or improperly used. That requires document examination, statement recording, specimen signatures and possibly forensic review.

The broader consequence is that the investigation may shape the political narrative. If the Criminal Investigation Department finds evidence of forgery, the case could deepen into a major institutional controversy. If the Criminal Investigation Department does not establish wrongdoing, the Trinamool Congress may argue that the disciplinary action was about internal conduct rather than proven document fraud.

The investigation also raises questions about timing and political pressure. West Bengal politics is highly polarised, and both the Trinamool Congress and its opponents are likely to interpret the probe through political lenses. That makes the Criminal Investigation Department’s process, documentation and transparency particularly important.

How does Abhishek Banerjee’s CID summons affect the political stakes of the forged signature row?

The Criminal Investigation Department summons to Abhishek Banerjee raises the political stakes because Abhishek Banerjee is one of the most visible figures in the Trinamool Congress. Abhishek Banerjee did not appear before the Criminal Investigation Department on the scheduled date and sought more time, citing health concerns.

The confirmed development is that Abhishek Banerjee was summoned in connection with the forged signature probe and did not appear before investigators on June 1, 2026. The institutional significance is that the investigation has reached senior political levels, making the case more difficult for the Trinamool Congress to contain as a localised dispute involving two expelled legislators.

The broader consequence is that the row may now become a test of leadership credibility inside the Trinamool Congress. The party has already acted against Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee. However, the involvement of Abhishek Banerjee in the investigation’s procedural timeline ensures that the controversy remains politically sensitive.

Opposition parties are likely to use the summons and the expulsions to argue that the Trinamool Congress is facing internal disorder. The Trinamool Congress is likely to frame the matter through party discipline and procedural cooperation. The investigation’s next steps will determine which narrative gains strength.

Why does the forged signature row matter for legislative procedure in the West Bengal Assembly?

The forged signature row matters for legislative procedure because signatures on party letters and Assembly-linked documents are not symbolic. Such documents can influence recognition of leaders, legislative positioning and the formal relationship between political parties and the Assembly secretariat.

The confirmed controversy concerns signatures linked to a letter related to legislative leadership choices. The institutional issue is document authenticity. If signatures are disputed, the Assembly process must have a way to verify whether a document genuinely reflects the will of the legislators named in it.

The broader consequence is that legislative institutions rely heavily on trust in written submissions. Party whips, leader nominations, support letters, resignation letters and other formal communications often depend on signatures. A forgery allegation therefore creates institutional stress beyond the immediate party involved.

For the West Bengal Assembly, the issue may lead to closer scrutiny of document verification norms. If signatures can be questioned after submission, the Assembly may need stronger procedures for authentication, acknowledgement and record keeping. The case could therefore have administrative consequences even after the political controversy fades.

How could Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee’s expulsions affect internal Trinamool Congress politics?

The expulsions could affect internal Trinamool Congress politics by signalling that the party leadership will not tolerate public dissent or actions seen as damaging to organisational interests. However, disciplinary action can also expose deeper fault lines if other legislators sympathise with the expelled leaders or question the handling of the dispute.

The confirmed action is the removal of Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee from the Trinamool Congress. The institutional position is that the two leaders acted against party interests. The broader consequence is that the party must now manage both external criticism and internal morale.

In political parties with strong central leadership, expulsions are often used to restore discipline quickly. But expulsions can also create secondary disputes if supporters of the expelled leaders feel ignored or if the expelled leaders continue speaking publicly. Sandipan Saha has already criticised the party’s internal atmosphere after the expulsion.

For the Trinamool Congress, the immediate challenge is containment. The party needs to prevent the forged signature row from becoming a broader rebellion narrative. The longer challenge is restoring confidence among legislators that internal disputes can be handled without damaging the party’s legislative standing.

Why is the forged signature row becoming a larger Bengal politics story beyond one party dispute?

The forged signature row is becoming a larger Bengal politics story because it combines internal party discipline, Assembly procedure, police investigation and leadership rivalry. These elements make the controversy relevant beyond the Trinamool Congress alone.

The confirmed developments include expulsions, Criminal Investigation Department statement recording, formation of a Special Investigation Team and summons to Abhishek Banerjee. The institutional response has moved across party and police structures. The broader consequence is that the controversy now sits at the intersection of politics and governance.

In West Bengal, political disputes often escalate quickly because the state’s public sphere is highly competitive. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the Trinamool Congress and other political forces are likely to use the row to shape public perception around legitimacy, corruption, discipline and democratic procedure.

The issue may also influence how voters and legislators interpret the Trinamool Congress’s internal stability. If the party resolves the dispute quickly, the damage may be limited. If the probe expands or more legislators become involved, the controversy could remain a recurring political pressure point.

What happens next in the West Bengal forged signature investigation and Trinamool Congress disciplinary fallout?

The next phase will depend on the Criminal Investigation Department’s findings, the Special Investigation Team’s progress and whether more legislators are questioned. Investigators may continue recording statements, collecting specimen signatures and reviewing documents connected to the Assembly letter.

The confirmed situation is that the Trinamool Congress has already expelled Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee, while the investigation remains active. The institutional question is whether the Criminal Investigation Department will identify evidence of forgery, procedural error, internal miscommunication or another explanation for the disputed signatures.

The broader political consequence will depend on how the Trinamool Congress manages the aftermath. If the party can separate disciplinary action from the legal process and show cooperation, the controversy may become containable. If the investigation expands toward senior figures or more legislators, the row may become a larger crisis.

For now, the forged signature controversy has already moved beyond a paperwork dispute. It has become a test of party discipline, legislative authenticity, police investigation and political trust in West Bengal.

What are the key takeaways from the Trinamool Congress forged signature row involving Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee?

• The Trinamool Congress expelled Sandipan Saha and Ritabrata Banerjee after accusing the two legislators of anti-party activities linked to the West Bengal Assembly forged signature controversy. Republic World reported that the expulsions were for six years.
• The forged signature controversy centres on allegations that signatures of Trinamool Congress legislators were forged or disputed on a letter connected to legislative leadership choices in the West Bengal Assembly. The dispute has moved beyond internal party disagreement because it concerns formal Assembly-linked documentation.
• The Criminal Investigation Department of West Bengal Police has recorded statements of several Trinamool Congress legislators as part of the probe. The investigation is examining alleged discrepancies in signatures and the authenticity of documents connected to the Assembly process.
• A Special Investigation Team has been formed to examine the forged signature allegations, giving the controversy a formal investigative structure. The probe may involve document examination, statement recording, specimen signatures and verification of how the disputed letter was prepared.
• Abhishek Banerjee was summoned by the Criminal Investigation Department in connection with the forged signature probe but sought more time to appear, citing health reasons. The summons has raised the political stakes because Abhishek Banerjee is one of the most prominent Trinamool Congress figures.
• The controversy matters for West Bengal Assembly procedure because party letters and legislative documents depend on verified signatures. If signatures are disputed, the Assembly process may need stronger authentication and record keeping mechanisms to protect institutional credibility.
• The expulsions signal that the Trinamool Congress leadership is trying to impose discipline during a sensitive investigation. However, the disciplinary action may also intensify debate over internal dissent, party control and whether the expelled legislators will continue challenging the leadership publicly.
• The next stage of the row will depend on the Criminal Investigation Department’s findings and whether more legislators or senior party figures are questioned. The case could either narrow into a document verification matter or widen into a larger political crisis.