The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on an interim application filed by senior All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, challenging the decision of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Speaker to recognise rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the 18th West Bengal Assembly.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao questioned the Speaker’s decision-making process and examined whether an expelled member of a political party could be recognised as the Leader of Opposition despite the party having formally communicated a different nominee for the post.
The dispute arose after the declaration of the West Bengal Assembly election results on May 4. According to the petitioner, a meeting of AITC legislators was held on May 6, during which Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was nominated as the Leader of Opposition. The decision was subsequently communicated to the Speaker’s office.
The Speaker, however, sought a formal resolution and minutes of the legislative party meeting. Thereafter, another meeting was held on May 19, and the resolution, along with the attendance sheet, was forwarded to the Speaker.
Despite these communications, the Speaker allegedly ignored the party’s official resolution and proceeded to recognise Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition on the basis of support extended by a group of rebel AITC legislators. Challenging this decision, Chattopadhyay approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned whether allegations of forgery and the registration of an FIR were sufficient grounds to disregard the original resolution submitted by the party. The Bench observed that a mere allegation of forgery could not be treated as an established fact unless determined by a competent authority or court of law.
The single-judge Bench further questioned whether the Speaker was justified in relying upon such allegations without granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The Court also expressed concern over the Speaker’s decision to recognise Ritabrata Banerjee despite having received information regarding the expulsion of certain rebel MLAs from the party.
Rejecting the argument that the expulsion was merely an internal party matter with no legal consequences, the Bench observed that once the Speaker had been informed that a member stood expelled from the political party, the issue could not simply be ignored while making an appointment to a constitutional position within the House.
Appearing for the Speaker, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya argued that neither the national general secretary nor the chairperson of the AITC was present during the meeting at which Chattopadhyay was allegedly chosen as the Leader of Opposition. Therefore, the resolution relied upon by the petitioner was based on hearsay, he pointed out.
He further submitted that 56 out of 58 rebel MLAs were physically present when they decided to support Ritabrata Banerjee’s appointment as LoP, and the Speaker’s decision was based on the will of the majority of legislators.
The Court, however, questioned why the earlier representation submitted by the party had been ignored and whether the Speaker was not required to provide an opportunity of hearing before deciding such a disputed issue. The Bench observed that no satisfactory explanation had been provided regarding the rejection of the first representation submitted by the party.
Bhattacharya maintained that the recognition of LoP was based on the support of the majority of legislators and further submitted that no prior notice had been issued to the rebel legislators before their expulsion from the party.
Senior Advocate Jaydip Kar, appearing for Ritabrata Banerjee and Chief Whip MLA Akhruzzaman, defended the Speaker’s action and argued that the applicable rules governing recognition of the Leader of Opposition primarily focused on numerical strength within the legislature. It was contended that the Speaker had correctly relied upon the support enjoyed by Banerjee among the legislators.
When the Court questioned how the Speaker could continue to treat Ritabrata Banerjee as a member of the AITC despite his expulsion, Kar submitted that the expulsion order had been stayed by a competent court. He further argued that the case did not involve defection or disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution but merely a dispute regarding the appointment of the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Whip.
According to him, both groups continued to belong to the same political party and the dispute related only to leadership positions within the legislature.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Chattopadhyay, argued that the Speaker could not appoint an LoP without taking into account the decision of the political party itself. He contended that the political party remained the parent body and the legislative party functioned under its authority. It was further argued that permitting the Speaker’s decision to stand would undermine the authority of the political party and create a situation where parallel factions within the same party could claim legitimacy.
The post Calcutta High Court reserves verdict on plea challenging recognition of Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP in West Bengal Assembly appeared first on India Legal.