The Calcutta High Court has declined interim relief for staying of the West Bengal Assembly speaker's decision to recognise rebel-TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition in a plea by TMC Leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay challenging the decision of the Speaker to ignore party chief Mamata Banerjee's decision of choosing Chattopadhyay as LoP.

Justice Krishna Rao passed the order. The matter has been posted after three weeks and all parties have been directed to file affidavits.

Yesterday, during an extensive hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the Speaker's decision-making process, particularly why a proposal submitted by the TMC leadership nominating Chattopadhyay was kept pending while a subsequent representation by a group of rebel legislators was accepted within days.

Justice Krishna Rao observed that the central issue was not whether allegations of forgery against the first resolution were correct, but whether the Speaker could ignore one proposal and recognise another without hearing all concerned parties.

"What prompted the Speaker to ignore one and accept the other?" the Court asked while hearing submissions on the interim relief sought by the petitioners.

Background

TMC Leadership communicated to the Speaker that Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay had been unanimously chosen as Leader of Opposition. The Speaker, however, sought further documents and minutes of the meeting said to have selected him.

Subsequently, a group of rebel TMC legislators claimed majority support within the legislative party and proposed Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP. Accepting that claim, the Speaker recognised Banerjee as Leader of Opposition.

The petitioners contend that the Speaker acted contrary to constitutional principles by ignoring the decision of the political party and instead relying upon the numerical strength of a faction within the legislature party.

Court Questions Delay In Deciding First Proposal

During the hearing, the Court repeatedly sought an explanation for the Speaker's failure to decide the first proposal submitted by the TMC leadership.

Referring to the timeline, Justice Rao noted that the initial communication had been received in May but remained pending, whereas the rival proposal was acted upon immediately after it was received in June.

The Court observed that natural justice required the Speaker to hear all concerned parties before arriving at a conclusion and questioned whether allegations of forgery alone could justify sidelining the original proposal.

The Bench further asked whether the Speaker could independently determine which faction represented the majority without first completing an inquiry into the competing claims.

Speaker Defends Decision Based On Numerical Majority

Appearing for the Assembly Speaker, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the Speaker had been confronted with an unprecedented situation involving rival claims over the office of Leader of Opposition.

It was argued that the Speaker recognised the TMC as the opposition party but had to determine who among competing claimants commanded the support of the majority of legislators belonging to that party.

According to the Speaker's stand, 58 out of 80 legislators supported Ritabrata Banerjee and personally appeared before the Speaker. The Speaker therefore relied on numerical strength within the legislative party while taking the decision.

The State further argued that there is no specific statutory procedure governing the appointment of a Leader of Opposition and that disputed questions of fact, including allegations regarding resolutions and signatures, could not be conclusively examined at the interim stage.

Rebels Argue LoP Determined By Legislative Majority

Senior Advocate Tilak Bose, appearing for Ritabrata Banerjee and another rebel MLA, contended that the Speaker's decision was entirely based on the numerical strength of legislators and therefore could not be faulted.

It was argued that the office of Leader of Opposition is linked to the functioning of the House and that the Speaker was entitled to assess which claimant enjoyed majority support among opposition legislators.

Bose submitted that even if the Speaker had earlier accepted another proposal, a subsequent shift in legislative support would justify recognising a different individual as LoP.

According to the rebels, the controversy concerns an internal disagreement within the same political party and not a split attracting the Tenth Schedule.

TMC Says Political Party, Not Legislature Party, Decides LoP

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Speaker fundamentally erred in treating the views of the legislature party as superior to those of the political party.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents distinguishing between a political party and its legislative party, Bandopadhyay submitted that only the political party leadership could determine who would represent its ideology and policy positions as Leader of Opposition.

He argued that permitting a group of legislators to choose the LoP contrary to the decision of the political party would undermine party discipline and constitutional principles governing representative democracy.

Bandopadhyay also questioned how the Speaker could appoint Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP despite having received communications regarding his expulsion from the party.

"The decision has to be of the political party, not of any faction of the legislature party," he submitted.

Order to be uploaded shortly.