'Constitutional Convention Is To Appoint Opposition Leader As PAC Chairman' : BJP MLA Ambika Roy Argues Before Calcutta High Court In Case Against Mukul Roy

The Calcutta High Court on Friday heard extensive arguments from senior advocate C.S Vaidyanathan appearing on behalf of BJP MLA Ambika Roy and senior advocate Anindya Kumar Mitra appearing on behalf of TMC MLA Mukul Roy in the plea challenging the appointment of  Mukul Roy as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

On July 9, Mukul Roy had been appointed as the Chairman of PAC by the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the year 2021-2022. The plea filed before the Court had contended that on June 11, without officially resigning from the BJP or as the MLA of Krishnanagar Uttar constituency, Mukul Roy had defected to the TMC party on June 11, 2021.

Senior counsel Vaidyanathan contended before a Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly had appointed Mukul Roy as the Chairman of PAC 'under the assumption' that he belongs to the BJP party. Furthermore, he brought to the notice of the Court that on June 17 a disqualification petition had been moved before the Speaker by BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari against Mukul Roy on the grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.  

"Despite such a disqualification petition being fully within the knowledge of the Speaker, Respondent 2 (Mukul Roy) was appointed as the PAC Chairman", the senior counsel argued. He further alleged that there had been a 'violation of constitutional convention not in accordance with constitutional morality' and thus prayed for a writ of quo warranto in this regard. 

It was further contended that Mukul Roy had defected to the BJP as had been reported by various media channels and that the respondents in their written submission had not 'specifically denied' such a fact. 

Constitutional convention of appointing an Opposition leader as PAC Chairman acknowledged by Speaker in assembly 

Senior counsel Vaidyanathan referred to the speech of the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly wherein the Speaker had allegedly recognized that there existed a 'very healthy and rich tradition of 54 years' of appointing members of the Opposition as Chairman of financial committees. The Speaker had thereafter proceeded to appoint Mukul Roy as PAC Chairman under the assumption that he belonged to the Opposition party i.e. the BJP. Thus, it was argued that the stance of the respondents that no such constitutional convention exists 'stands in the teeth' of the admission by the Speaker. 

"This is a public order, averment made in public on the floor of the Assembly regarding the existence of such a convention", the senior counsel argued while dismissing the opposing contention that no such constitutional convention exists. 

It was further argued that Mukul Roy had switched his political affiliation by joining the TMC in a very public manner in the presence of the Chief Minister of the State Mamata Banerjee. Thus, it is 'common knowledge no' and can longer be disputed. 

Reliance was further placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner wherein it had been held that 'public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself'.

Thus, it was argued that the respondents are 'estopped' from making an averment that no such constitutional convention exists since the existence of such a convention had been recognized by a constitutional authority i.e. the Speaker of the Assembly.

Constitutional conventions are in the nature of binding precedents 

It was further submitted before the Court that constitutional conventions are in the nature of binding precedents which can be enforced. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court had taken note of the constitutional convention of appointing judges in conformity with the views of the Chief Justice of India. It had also been acknowledged by the Apex Court that a constitutional convention is as binding as constitutional law, the senior counsel further submitted. 

The senior counsel further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India wherein it had been held, 

"We are of the view that there is no distinction between the "constitutional law" and an established "constitutional convention" and both are binding in the field of their operation. Once it is established to the satisfaction of the court that a particular convention exists and is operating then the convention becomes a part of the "constitutional law" of the land and can be enforced in the like manner." 

Reliance was also placed in the test laid down in the aforementioned Apex Court judgment for establishing the existence of a convention which is- " first, what are the precedents; secondly, did the actors in the precedents believe that they were bound by a rule; and thirdly, is there a reason for the rule?" The senior counsel submitted that in the instant case the requirements of such a test had been fulfilled. 

Senior counsel Vaidyanathan further placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur wherein the Supreme Court had held that if a member of the Assembly is found to have been disqualified their continuance in the Assembly even for a day would be illegal and unconstitutional. 

He further submitted that the disqualification petition against Mukul Roy has been pending before the Speaker of the Assembly for months despite the Supreme Court ruling in Keisham Meghachandra Singh wherein it had been held that 'a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided.'

The matter is slated to be heard next on September 13.

Case Title: Ambika Roy v. The Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Ors