The Calcutta High Court has rejected a plea challenging the West Bengal Speaker's decision to recognise TMC-Rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition, whilst ignoring Mamata Banerjee's choice of Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.

The order was passed by a division bench of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, who were hearing the matter in appeal from the decision of a single bench who had also rejected the plea of the petitioners and declined to stay the Speaker's decision recognising Banerjee as Leader of the Opposition.

While the court noted that the "correct course of action" for the Speaker would have been to invite both parties before taking such a decision, it held that at preset no interim relief could be granted to "maintain orderliness of the house."

It thus remanded the matter back to the single bench, and set a timeline of two months for the matter to be resolved.

Background

The dispute arises out of a controversy over the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly following competing claims within the Trinamool Congress (TMC) legislature party.

The controversy began after the TMC leadership communicated to the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly that Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay had been unanimously chosen as the Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker, however, sought additional documents, including the minutes of the meeting at which Chattopadhyay was stated to have been selected, and did not take a final decision on the communication.

While the first proposal remained pending, a group of TMC MLAs subsequently approached the Speaker claiming that they commanded the support of a majority of legislators and proposed Ritabrata Banerjee for the post of Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker accepted the subsequent claim and recognised Banerjee as the Leader of the Opposition.

Chattopadhyay thereafter approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the Speaker's decision. The petitioners contended that the Speaker had failed to consider the decision of the political party's leadership and had instead proceeded on the basis of the numerical strength claimed by a group of legislators within the legislature party.

During the proceedings, the Court examined the manner in which the two competing claims had been dealt with by the Speaker. Justice Krishna Rao questioned why the proposal nominating Chattopadhyay, which had been received earlier, was kept pending, while the subsequent representation seeking Banerjee's recognition was acted upon within a short period.

The Court also considered the Speaker's reliance on allegations that the resolution supporting Chattopadhyay was forged. It observed that the question was not merely whether the allegations of forgery were correct, but whether the Speaker could disregard the first proposal and accept the subsequent one without hearing all concerned parties.

The Speaker defended the decision on the ground that the situation was unprecedented, with rival claims emerging within the same opposition party. It was submitted that the Speaker had to ascertain which claimant commanded the support of the majority of opposition legislators. According to the Speaker, 58 of the 80 TMC legislators had supported Banerjee and appeared before him, providing a basis for determining the issue on the strength of the legislature party.

The respondents supporting Banerjee similarly argued that the Speaker was entitled to recognise the person who enjoyed majority support among the opposition legislators. They contended that the controversy was essentially an internal dispute within the TMC legislature party and that a subsequent change in the numerical support of MLAs could justify a change in the person occupying the office of Leader of the Opposition.

On the other hand, Chattopadhyay's counsel argued that the Speaker had conflated the political party with its legislature party. Relying on the distinction recognised in Supreme Court decisions, it was submitted that the political party retained the authority to determine the person who would represent its political ideology and policy as Leader of the Opposition.

The petitioners also questioned the recognition of Banerjee in circumstances where the Speaker had allegedly received communications concerning his expulsion from the TMC.

A detailed order is awaited.

Case No: APOT/110/2026

Case: SOBHANDEB CHATTOPADHYAY VS HONBLE SPEAKER, WEST BENGAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ORS.