Calcutta HC seeks clarity on speaker’s powers in leader of opposition row
The Calcutta High Court questioned the West Bengal Assembly Speaker’s authority and procedure in deciding between conflicting Leader of Opposition nominations from the same party. Hearing a challenge by TMC MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, the court sought clarity on resolving such unprecedented disputes
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned the procedure to be followed by the Assembly Speaker when two conflicting proposals are received from the same political party for the appointment of Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the House, hearing the first-ever such dispute in West Bengal Assembly.
Hearing a petition filed by TMC MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay challenging the rejection of his name and the appointment of another party MLA Ritabrata Banerjee, Justice Krishna Rao said the Speaker is required to act after receiving a resolution from the largest opposition party, but must also address disputes arising from such proposals in accordance with law.
The judge asked what the Speaker’s duty would be if two different proposals are received from the same political party and whether he can take a decision “suo motu” or must give both sides an opportunity to be heard.
Speaker’s counsel Billwadal Bhattacharya submitted that under the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Emoluments Act, 1937, the Leader of Opposition is the member recognised as the leader of the party with the greatest numerical strength in the House.
He further argued that in case of any dispute regarding the party’s numerical strength or its leader, the Speaker’s decision is “final and conclusive”.
He also said this was the first time in the history of the West Bengal Assembly that the LoP appointment had become contentious. The hearing will continue on Wednesday, the court said.
The counsel informed the court that two MLAs — Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha — had reportedly informed the Speaker that their signatures on the resolution were not theirs.
The court also questioned whether the Speaker could ignore the proposal of the largest opposition party and appoint another person as Leader of Opposition without hearing the concerned parties.
Justice Rao noted that while the TMC had sent a resolution seeking the appointment of Chattopadhyay, the Speaker had not acted on it immediately.
He also observed that the complaint regarding signatures was made on May 27, but the resolution seeking appointment of Chattopadhyay, the TMC MLA from Ballygunge in south Kolkata, was sent to the Speaker earlier.
In the 294-member Assembly, BJP won 207 seats, while the TMC bagged 80 and the rest by others. Justice Rao further asked who proposed Ritabrata Banerjee’s name for the LoP, maintaining that there has to be a political party which should make the proposal.
Justice Rao further asked whether the Speaker can ignore the proposal of the opposition party with majority strength and appoint another person as LoP without hearing the matter.
Bhattacharya, the additional advocate general of the state, submitted before the court that what will have to be examined is whether the recommendation for appointing Chattopadhyay as LoP can be considered valid.
He said the resolution was claimed to have been adopted on May 9 by the TMC, following which the Speaker’s office sought the minutes of the meeting.
On May 20, another communication was received from the party, purportedly enclosing a copy of the resolution with the minutes and signature register of the Trinamool Congress.
Speaker’s counsel Billwadal Bhattacharya told the court that following a complaint on May 27 by Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha alleging that their signatures on the resolution sent to the Speaker were forged, the matter was handed over to the CID for investigation.
Bhattacharya further said the Speaker received a document containing the signatures of 58 TMC MLAs who proposed Banerjee as the LoP and Saha as the chief whip.
Justice Rao asked how the Speaker can decide without convening the House and asking the rival factions to prove their majority.
