Calcutta High Court Questions Rebel-TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee's Appointment As LoP By Speaker After Expulsion From Political Party

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned whether the West Bengal Assembly Speaker could recognise a Leader of Opposition (LoP) allegedly without the consent of the political party concerned, while hearing a challenge to the recognition of rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP instead of the Mamata Banerjee-led faction's nominee, Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.

Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a plea filed against the Speaker's decision recognising Banerjee as Leader of Opposition and a Chief Whip, allegedly backed by a group of rebel legislators.

The Court noted the petitioners' contention that the person recognised as LoP was no longer part of the political party after expulsion, and told the State: "Can the Speaker recognise the rebel leader without consent of the political party...the person appointed as LoP is not in any party. He has been expelled."

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay sought an interim stay on the Speaker's decision, contending that the recognition was contrary to the Tenth Schedule and the settled law governing the relationship between a political party and its legislature party.

Bandopadhyay submitted that a meeting of elected MLAs was held on May 6, where Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was chosen as the party's nominee for the post of LoP. According to him, signatures of MLAs supporting Chattopadhyay were subsequently obtained and placed against his name.

He argued that the Speaker had been informed of the party's decision on multiple occasions but nevertheless proceeded to recognise a rival faction supported by 59 MLAs. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including decisions concerning political party mergers and the Maharashtra political crisis, Bandopadhyay contended that the Tenth Schedule recognises the primacy of the political party and not merely the numerical strength of a legislature party.

"The decision of the political party must be accepted by the Speaker. Not of the legislature party," he argued, adding that the anti-defection framework would become unworkable if "political party" were equated with "legislature party".

He further submitted that the Speaker had effectively acted on the basis of support from 59 legislators while ignoring the political party's decision. According to him, such an approach undermined the object of the Tenth Schedule. Bandopadhyay also argued that the individuals recognised had already been expelled from the party and that the expulsion orders had not been challenged.

Questioning the legality of the recognition, he submitted: "How can the Speaker recognise them as LoP then?"

Urging the Court to intervene before the Assembly reconvenes on June 18, Bandopadhyay argued that the party's voice in the House must be reflected through its chosen representative and sought a stay on the Speaker's decision.

During the hearing, the Court repeatedly queried whether any formal order recognising the LoP had been published. The Bench observed that if the recognition had been granted, the order ought to be available for scrutiny.

Opposing interim relief, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya argued that the petition suffered from incomplete pleadings and that no specific prayer had been made for quashing the Speaker's decision. He submitted that Assembly records could be obtained through the procedure prescribed under the House Rules and sought time to place the relevant materials before the Court.

Bhattacharya informed the Bench that he would file an affidavit along with all relevant records, including the order under challenge, and would also raise objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. He further contended that the reliefs sought were essentially declaratory in nature and therefore did not warrant interim orders.

When the State sought time to return before the Assembly reopens, the petitioners pressed for interim protection, apprehending that consequential steps such as allocation of seating arrangements in the House could be taken.

However, the Court refrained from passing any immediate protective order. Observing that the relevant order of the Speaker should first be placed before it, the Bench directed the parties to return after the records are produced.

"Come back, let us see. Let the order come from the Speaker," the Court said while concluding the hearing.

The matter is slated for hearing on Tuesday, 16th June.