The Calcutta High Court on Thursday refused to stay the decision of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Speaker recognising rebel All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition (LoP).
The single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao declined interim relief on the petition filed by senior AITC leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, challenging the Speaker’s decision to appoint Banerjee despite the party leadership having nominated Chattopadhyay for the post. The Court directed all parties to file their affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing after three weeks.
While examining the decision-making process adopted by the Speaker. the Bench repeatedly questioned the circumstances under which the proposal submitted by the AITC leadership nominating Chattopadhyay remained pending, while a subsequent representation submitted by a group of rebel legislators was acted upon within a short period.
The dispute arose after the AITC leadership informed the Speaker that Chattopadhyay had been unanimously selected as the Leader of Opposition. The Speaker, however, sought additional documents, including records and minutes of the meeting in which the decision was allegedly taken.
While that proposal remained under consideration, a group of rebel TMC legislators approached the Speaker claiming that they enjoyed majority support within the legislature party and proposed Ritabrata Banerjee for the post of Leader of Opposition. Acting on that representation, the Speaker recognised Banerjee as LoP.
The petitioners contended that the Speaker’s action was arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to settled principles governing parliamentary democracy. They argued that the decision of the recognised political party must prevail over the views of a faction within the legislature party and that the Speaker could not disregard the nomination made by the party leadership.
Justice Rao repeatedly sought an explanation for the Speaker’s failure to decide the first proposal submitted by the TMC leadership. Referring to the sequence of events, the Court noted that the original communication had been received in May but remained undecided, whereas the rival proposal submitted in June was accepted almost immediately.
The Court observed that the controversy was not confined to allegations of forgery surrounding the first resolution but also involved the legality of the Speaker’s decision to ignore one proposal and recognise another without affording an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. The Bench further indicated that principles of natural justice required a fair consideration of competing claims before arriving at a conclusion.
It further questioned whether allegations relating to forged signatures or documents could, by themselves, justify keeping the original proposal pending indefinitely. It further examined whether the Speaker could independently determine which faction commanded majority support without first conducting a proper inquiry into the rival claims placed before him.
Defending the decision, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the Assembly Speaker submitted that the Speaker was confronted with an unprecedented constitutional situation involving competing claims to the office of Leader of Opposition.
It was argued that while the Speaker recognised the AITC as the principal opposition party, he was required to ascertain which claimant enjoyed the support of the majority of legislators belonging to that party.
According to the Speaker’s stand, 58 out of 80 legislators had expressed support for Ritabrata Banerjee and had personally appeared before the Speaker. The decision to recognise Banerjee was therefore based on the numerical strength of legislators within the legislature party.
The State further contended that there was no specific statutory framework governing the appointment of a Leader of Opposition and that disputed questions of fact, including allegations concerning resolutions and signatures, could not be conclusively adjudicated at the interim stage.
Senior Advocate Tilak Bose, appearing for Ritabrata Banerjee and another rebel legislator, supported the Speaker’s decision and argued that the office of Leader of Opposition is intrinsically linked to the functioning of the Legislative Assembly. He submitted that the Speaker was entitled to determine which claimant commanded majority support among opposition legislators and that the decision was based solely on legislative strength.
It was further argued that even if a different proposal had initially been under consideration, a subsequent shift in support among legislators could justify recognition of another individual as Leader of Opposition.
The rebel legislators also contended that the dispute concerned an internal disagreement within the same political party and did not involve a split or disqualification issue attracting the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
Opposing the Speaker’s decision, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Speaker had committed a jurisdictional error by treating the legislature party as superior to the political party. Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court distinguishing between a political party and its legislative wing, he submitted that only the recognised political party leadership possesses the authority to decide who will represent the party’s ideology, policies and political position as Leader of Opposition.
The petitioners argued that permitting a group of legislators to elect a Leader of Opposition contrary to the decision of the political party would undermine party discipline, constitutional morality and the framework of representative democracy. They further questioned how Ritabrata Banerjee could be recognised as Leader of Opposition despite communications allegedly informing the Speaker that he had been expelled from the party.
The post Calcutta High Court refuses to stay Speaker’s recognition of rebel AITC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP appeared first on India Legal.