Court refuses to stay rebel TMC MLA's appointment as LoP
What's the story
The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim relief in a case challenging the West Bengal Assembly speaker's recognition of rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition. Justice Krishna Rao said the court didn't find any prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and asked all parties to file affidavits after three weeks. However, it questioned why the speaker ignored TMC leadership's proposal nominating Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as LoP but accepted rival proposal within days.
Legal scrutiny
Court asks why Speaker ignored 1 proposal, accepted other
Justice Rao emphasized that the core issue was not about forgery allegations against the first resolution but whether the Speaker could ignore one proposal and accept another without hearing all parties. The court asked, "What prompted the Speaker to ignore one and accept the other?" This question came during hearings on a plea by TMC leader Chattopadhyay challenging the Speaker's decision to ignore party chief Mamata Banerjee's decision to choose him as LoP.
Proposal delay
TMC proposed Chattopadhyay, Speaker recognized Banerjee
The TMC leadership had proposed Chattopadhyay as Leader of Opposition, but rebel legislators claimed majority support and proposed Ritabrata. The Speaker accepted this claim and recognized Ritabrata as LoP. Petitioners argue this decision violated constitutional principles by ignoring the decision of the party and instead relying on the numerical strength of a faction within the legislature party.
Proposal delay
Court questions delay in decision
During the hearing, the court repeatedly questioned the Speaker's delay in deciding on the TMC leadership's proposal. Justice Rao noted that while the initial communication was received in May, it remained pending, whereas Ritabrata's rival proposal was acted upon immediately after its receipt in June. The court stressed that natural justice required hearing all parties before making a decision and questioned if forgery allegations alone justified sidelining the original proposal.
Decision defense
No specific statutory procedure for appointing Leader of Opposition
The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Assembly Speaker, defended the decision based on numerical strength. The Speaker recognized TMC as the opposition party but had to determine who commanded majority support among competing claimants. According to this stand, 58 out of 80 legislators supported Ritabrata. The state argued there is no specific statutory procedure for appointing a Leader of Opposition and disputed questions of fact, including allegations of forged signatures, couldn't be conclusively examined at an interim stage.
Party
Background of split
After the TMC's defeat in the Assembly elections, a split emerged within its legislative party, with most of the party's MLAs turning "rebels." The party leadership had proposed Chattopadhyay as LoP but Ritabrata alleged his signature, along with others', was forged on a resolution document appointing the LoP. He was expelled from the party thereafter. But he emerged shortly, claiming to be backed by nearly 60 of 80 MLAs and declared himself the LoP. The Speaker accepted his claim.