'Perverse Order': Calcutta HC Sets Aside WB Speaker's Order Dismissing Suvendu Adhikari's Plea To Disqualify Mukul Roy, Remits Plea Back To Speaker

The Calcutta High Court on Monday set aside West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee's order dismissing a petition by Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari which sought disqualification of TMC lawmaker Mukul Roy as a member of the House on the ground of defection and restored the matter for fresh consideration.On July 9, Mukul Roy had been appointed as the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee (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.In the impugned order dated February 11, the Speaker under para 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution had rejected the petition to disqualify Mukul Roy on the ground of defection. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj set aside the impugned order after coming to the conclusion that it is perverse. "..the impugned order of the Speaker is clearly a perverse order and perversity being one of the grounds of judicial review available against such an order, this Court finds that the order impugned cannot be sustained", the Court ordered. Adhikari had approached the Speaker for disqualifying Mukul Roy, under paragraph 2 (1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule on the ground that having won the election of MLA from the BJP symbol as a BJP candidate he had joined the TMC on June 11, 2021. In support of his plea, he had placed reliance on several newspaper reports, tweets, and alleged press conference which was telecast live in the facebook page of AITC, video recording of the said press conference and screenshots of the announcement made in the twitter handle of AITC on June 11, 2021 along with the transcripts thereof.In support of the evidence relating to electronic record, Adhikari had filed the required certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act before the Speaker. However, the Speaker had subsequently rejected the electronic evidence and had even refused to admit the certificate filed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in support of the electronic evidence. Pursuant to the perusal of the record, the Court observed that the Speaker had passed the impugned order by completely ignoring the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act which was in support of vital electronic evidence. "A bare perusal of the aforesaid makes it clear that the Speaker while passing the impugned order has completely ignored the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act submitted by the petitioner in support of the electronic record. The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act submitted by the petitioner was a vital document in support of the evidence in the form of electronic record which has been completely ignored by the Speaker", the Court underscored. The Court noted that the Speaker had refused to admit electronic evidence by stating that it was not accompanied by certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The Court underscored that it is necessary for the Speaker to duly take into account the certificate given by the petitioner under Section 65-B of the Act before rejecting the electronic evidence as inadmissible which he has failed to do in the present case."The Speaker is required to consider the certificate produced by the petitioner under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and thereafter it is open to him to accept or reject the certificate after assigning due reasons and take further steps. If such a certificate is accepted then the electronic evidence produced by the petitioner becomes admissible unless there is any other legally acceptable objection about its admissibility. There is possibility of reaching to a different conclusion than the one which has been arrived at by the Speaker in the impugned order, after holding the electronic evidence admissible and after examining the same", the Court elucidated further. The Court further averred that if the Tribunal or the Court concerned finds a certificate given under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act to be defective, then it can summon the person/persons referred to Section 65-B of the Act. Pertinently, the Bench took 'serious issue' of the contention raised by the petitioner that the Speaker who is a constitutional authority is espousing the cause of Mukul Roy as evident in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Speaker and thus cannot be said to be acting independently.Furthermore, the Court noted that a technical objection about the maintainability of this petition was also raised by the Speaker which gave an opportunity to the petitioner to question his independence.Opining that the Speaker should impartially and independently decide the disqualification petition, the Court underscored, "The respondent No. 1, Hon'ble Speaker, had limited role to place the relevant material before this Court in...

'Perverse Order': Calcutta HC Sets Aside WB Speaker's Order Dismissing Suvendu Adhikari's Plea To Disqualify Mukul Roy, Remits Plea Back To Speaker

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags