Can Speaker Suo Moto Ignore Majority Party's LoP Proposal? Calcutta High Court Questions Ritabrata Banerjee's Appointment As LoP

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned whether the West Bengal Assembly Speaker can ignore the name proposed by the majority political party as the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and pass an order to appoint some other individual.Justice Krishna Rao framed the question while hearing a plea challenging the recognition of rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP by the West Bengal Assembly speaker instead of the Mamata Banerjee-led faction's nominee, Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.The plea has been filed against the Speaker's decision recognising Banerjee as Leader of Opposition and a Chief Whip, allegedly backed by a group of rebel legislators.During the hearing today, AAG appearing for the Speaker said that he will demonstrate whether the Speaker can exercise discretion or not, and that the ruling in the Shiva Sena case was followed by the Speaker in the matter.At the outset, the Court asked AAG how many parties were present in the Assembly on the day when the LoP's name was proposed. As the AAG responded that the number of parties was the same as that day, the judge remarked:“So the name which has been proposed was given by the majority party. So i am framing the question- If the name is proposed by the majority party, can the speaker ignore that and pass any other order to appoint anyone else?”The AAG submitted that the situation depends on the facts of each case and that the Speaker must look at the party composition. “Unlike the Shiva Sena case, there were two resolutions. There were two disqualification proceedings in that case. Here the case is otherwise. It is under the 1936 Bengal enomulents act and there is no rival faction also…. Here the question is whether there was at all a resolution. The court must consider whether there is a prima case for interim relief,” he said. The AAG added that in the present case, there were two resolutions dated May 06 and May 19 and that the members were made to sign the former resolution on May 19.He said that the resolution to appoint the LoP and the admission of the petitioners were completely contrary. “It has been stated by them that the resolution was taken on 6th May. And they have written to the speaker annexing that resolution….. The SC has held that the speaker cannot be a rubber stamp. In case of a conflict , the speaker had to tally the signatures. Here they are saying that nothing was signed on 6th may. 19th they were asked to sign on a resolution dated 6th may,” he said. AAG then submitted that the signatures were all in block letters and none of them tallied with the signatures available in the House records.At this stage, the judge asked: “That is correct, but see, you got the proposal and on that day you didn't have any objection on that proposal…. What is the duty of the speaker ? 70 MLAs of the opposition party sent the resolution…The speaker had to appoint. In future if anything comes he can check, but why had he started his own enquiry?”To this, AAG submitted that every resolution is accompanied by an annexure and that the Speaker had looked into the composition of the party and their way of conducting meetings. He said that the system of the party is to choose LoP by holding a meeting of elected members. In the meantime the situation became contentious , two elected MLAs of this party rebelled, he said. He told Court that the complaint was made on May 20 but was placed before the speaker on May 25. He said that the letter was served on June 01 in the office of the speaker whereby the rebel MLAs were expelled. “First, they say that the resolution of 6th was taken on 19th but their general secretary told the speaker the resolution was taken on 6th May…..They have also admitted that the resolution was signed on the 19th. On 6th there was no resolution. That became contentious,” he continued. On this, the Court said: “Fine there is dispute on dates and signatures. But speaker received the proposal and resolution. Why he kept silent? Dispute only came on 27th May…..Person who has been appointed was proposed by who?…The political party and majority is with TMC…On whose proposal did you appoint the LoP?”To this, AAG said: “The complaint came on 20th may. The document sent by the two rebel legislators has indicated that there was a mismatch in signatures. Then an FIR was filed and investigation started on 27th may. While this was going on, the speaker received a document from 58 MLAs from the Trinamool congress… On consideration of everything, even the SC has said it is on the facts of every case.”While referring to the judgement in Shiva Sena case, AAG said that the order of the speaker appointing one of the rebel MLAs as LoP takes into consideration the constitution of the AITC. On this, the Court inquired what is the duty of the speaker when he has two proposal of the same party. “He can Suo moto recognise one? Where is the rejection of the earlier proposal?,” it asked. AAG said that the Speaker can decide under the West Bengal Enomulents Act and that the...

Can Speaker Suo Moto Ignore Majority Party's LoP Proposal? Calcutta High Court Questions Ritabrata Banerjee's Appointment As LoP

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Can Speaker Suo Moto Ignore Majority Party's LoP Proposal? Calcutta High Court Questions Ritabrata Banerjee's Appointment As LoP

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers