Calcutta High Court Scrutinizes West Bengal Speaker’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court recently posed critical questions to the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly regarding his decision to recognize a group of rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLAs’ choice for Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the assembly. This decision was made despite the TMC’s official selection for the role. Presiding over the case, Justice Krishna Rao highlighted the Speaker’s apparent eagerness to accept the rebel MLAs’ decision while simultaneously initiating an investigation into the TMC’s original proposal, even though no complaints had been filed at that time.
Justice Rao remarked, “Your Speaker has [been] very keen that, ‘yes 58 [MLAs] [is] majority, I appoint’, but your Speaker on 78 [MLAs] has started all the enquiries. Why it is?” This was in reference to the Speaker’s actions concerning the appointment of Ritabrata Banerjee, a rebel MLA, as the LoP, a decision challenged by senior TMC leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.
Petition Details and Court’s Inquiries
The petition, filed by Chattopadhyay, disputes the Speaker’s recognition of Banerjee as LoP in the 18th West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Following the declaration of the Assembly election results on May 4, 2026, a TMC meeting on May 6 nominated Chattopadhyay as LoP. This decision was officially communicated to the Speaker. However, the Speaker demanded a resolution and meeting minutes from the legislative party, leading to another TMC meeting on May 19. The subsequent resolution and attendance sheet were submitted to the Speaker, who allegedly disregarded these communications and acknowledged Banerjee’s appointment based on the support from a faction of TMC MLAs.
The court questioned whether the Speaker could lawfully disregard the proposal submitted by the majority party. “If the name is proposed by the majority party in the assembly, whether the Speaker can ignore that and pass any other order for appointing any other leader of opposition without any hearing on that?” Justice Rao queried.
Speaker’s Defense and Court’s Concerns
Representing the Speaker, Senior Advocate Bilwadal Bhattacharya argued that discrepancies existed between the signatures on the initial proposal and the legislative records. He mentioned that a complaint was later filed by two TMC members alleging forgery of their signatures, leading to an FIR registered on May 27.
More Read
Despite Bhattacharya’s defense, the court noted the absence of a complaint when the original LoP recommendation was received. Justice Rao observed, “You got the proposal and on that day you are not having any objection with regard to that proposal. What is the duty of the Speaker once the resolution has come? The Speaker has to appoint. If any future dispute arises, the Speaker can decide in accordance with the law. So how the Speaker started the inquiry without any objection?”
Bhattacharya contended that the Speaker made his decision after reviewing the party’s constitution and established practices due to the dispute. However, the court questioned the Speaker’s procedural approach, particularly the lack of a hearing before resolving the conflict. “If the Speaker is having two proposals of the same party, what is the duty of the Speaker? He can suo motu recognise one, where is the rejection of earlier proposal? I am asking the procedure if you have received one proposal, even anonymous or bogus, and you are continuing … on that and police started [investigating] and in the meantime second proposal came so what is the duty of the Speaker? He can suo motu … or he has to decide by giving opportunity,” Justice Rao asked.
The court further emphasized, “How the Speaker sitting in chambers can decide that this is correct and this wrong. Why the House is there?”
More Read
The hearing is set to continue, with further arguments expected in the coming days.
