The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned whether the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly could disregard the name proposed by the opposition party having the highest numerical strength and instead recognise another individual as the Leader of Opposition (LoP) on his own assessment.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao raised the issue while hearing a petition challenging the Speaker’s decision to recognise rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition instead of Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, who had been nominated by the faction led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The petition also challenged the Speaker’s recognition of a Chief Whip allegedly supported by a group of rebel legislators.
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing for the Speaker submitted that he would demonstrate whether the Speaker possessed discretion in the matter and contended that the Speaker had acted in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Shiv Sena verdict.
At the outset, the Court sought clarification regarding the composition of the Assembly on the date when the proposal for appointment of the Leader of Opposition was submitted. After being informed that the party composition remained unchanged, the Court observed that the proposal had emanated from the political party commanding majority support among opposition legislators.
The Court consequently framed the central issue for consideration as whether the Speaker could ignore the name proposed by the majority political party and appoint another individual as LoP.
Responding to the query, the AAG submitted that the issue depended upon the peculiar facts of each case and that the Speaker was required to examine the composition of the political party before taking a decision. Distinguishing the present dispute from the Shiv Sena litigation, he argued that the Maharashtra case involved rival resolutions and disqualification proceedings, whereas the present dispute arose under the Bengal Emoluments Act, 1936.
He further contended that there was no recognised rival faction and that the real issue concerned the validity of the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners.
According to the state, two separate resolutions dated May 6 and May 19 were involved. It was argued that legislators had actually signed the resolution on May 19, although the document was dated May 6. The State contended that the petitioners themselves had admitted that signatures were obtained on May 19, thereby creating a dispute regarding the authenticity of the resolution allegedly passed on May 6.
The AAG further submitted that the signatures appearing on the resolution were in block letters and did not tally with the signatures available in official Assembly records.
At this stage, the Court questioned why the Speaker did not raise any objection when the original proposal was first submitted. The Court observed that if approximately 70 legislators belonging to the opposition party had forwarded a resolution proposing a Leader of Opposition, the Speaker was ordinarily required to act upon it. The Court asked why the Speaker had initiated an independent inquiry instead of acting on the proposal and examining disputes subsequently if required.
In response, the State submitted that every resolution is accompanied by supporting documents and that the Speaker was entitled to examine the composition of the political party and the manner in which the meeting had been conducted. It was argued that the party’s established practice required the Leader of Opposition to be chosen through a meeting of elected legislators and that disputes emerged after two MLAs allegedly rebelled.
The State further submitted that a complaint regarding the authenticity of the resolution had been lodged on May 20 and subsequently placed before the Speaker. It was also pointed out that a communication expelling the rebel MLAs from the party was received by the Speaker’s office on June 1.
The Court, however, continued to question the Speaker’s conduct, observing that the proposal and resolution had already been received before disputes regarding signatures and dates surfaced. The Court sought clarification regarding the basis on which Ritabrata Banerjee was recognised as Leader of Opposition and asked whose proposal had been relied upon for the appointment.
The AAG submitted that the complaint regarding discrepancies in signatures had prompted scrutiny by the Speaker. He stated that an FIR had also been registered and an investigation commenced. According to him, while these developments were taking place, the Speaker received another communication supported by 58 legislators belonging to the Trinamool Congress. It was argued that the Speaker considered all relevant materials before arriving at a decision.
Referring to the Shiv Sena judgment, the State contended that the Speaker’s order recognising Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition was consistent with principles governing legislative party disputes and had taken into account the constitution of the All India Trinamool Congress.
The Court then questioned whether the Speaker could suo motu choose between two competing proposals submitted by members of the same political party without first rejecting the earlier proposal through a reasoned order. The Court also asked whether the statutory framework under the Bengal Emoluments Act authorised such a course of action.
The State maintained that the Speaker was empowered to take a decision under the Act and that the process of determining legislative recognition was a continuing one. It was also argued that expulsion from the political party did not automatically result in detachment from the legislature party within the Assembly.
Justice Rao further questioned how the Speaker could determine which proposal was valid without referring the issue to the House. The Court observed that the complaint of two legislators appeared insufficient to explain how the support base reflected in the first proposal allegedly reduced from 70 legislators to 58 legislators. The Court also expressed difficulty in understanding why the Speaker undertook extensive scrutiny when the first proposal was supported by a larger number of legislators, but readily accepted the later proposal.
The State replied that upon receiving complaints, the Speaker was duty-bound to conduct an inquiry. It was submitted that the Speaker had sought records, resolutions and minutes of meetings before taking a decision and had found discrepancies in the documents produced.
Referring to the Speaker’s order, the State argued that the Leader of Opposition is the leader of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the Assembly and that any doubt regarding such recognition is to be decided by the Speaker.
The Court nevertheless questioned how the Speaker could ignore the earlier proposal supported by legislators belonging to the Trinamool Congress merely because allegations of signature forgery were under investigation. The Court observed that the Speaker was required to adjudicate the issue rather than simply accept the latter proposal.
At this stage, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, sought an early hearing and pressed for interim relief. He submitted that a rival bloc had emerged and attempted to secure recognition despite the settled legal position regarding political party structures and legislative representation. The Court accordingly listed the matter for further hearing at 2 pm on Wednesday.
The dispute arises from the Speaker’s decision to recognise Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition despite the claim of the Mamata Banerjee-led faction that Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay had been duly nominated for the post during a meeting of elected MLAs held on May 6.
During earlier hearings, the Court had noted the petitioners’ contention that the recognised Leader of Opposition had already been expelled from the political party and questioned whether the Speaker could recognise a rebel legislator without the consent of the political party concerned.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay argued that the Speaker’s decision was contrary to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the settled jurisprudence governing the relationship between a political party and its legislative party. He contended that the decision of the political party must prevail and that recognition based solely on numerical strength within the legislative party would undermine the anti-defection framework.
The petitioners further argued that the Speaker had ignored repeated communications informing him of the party’s decision and had acted on the basis of support allegedly secured by 59 legislators. It was contended that the legislators recognised by the Speaker had already been expelled from the party and that such expulsion orders remained unchallenged.
The State, opposing interim relief, had earlier argued that the petition suffered from incomplete pleadings and that no specific prayer had been made for setting aside the Speaker’s decision. It also submitted that Assembly records could be obtained through the procedure prescribed under House Rules and indicated that all relevant records, including the impugned order, would be produced before the Court.
The petitioners, however, expressed apprehension that consequential actions, including allocation of seating arrangements in the Assembly before the House reconvened on June 18, could prejudice their rights and therefore sought immediate judicial intervention.
The post Calcutta High Court questions authority of West Bengal Assembly Speaker to bypass majority party’s LoP nominee appeared first on India Legal.