'Were you waiting for objection?' | Calcutta HC questions Speaker in appointing West Bengal LoP

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday raised questions over the procedure followed by the Assembly speaker in appointing the leader of the opposition when two conflicting proposals were received from the same political party position. The court was hearing the first-ever such dispute in the legislative history of West Bengal. A writ petition was filed by TMC MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay challenging the rejection of his name and the appointment of another party MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the leader of the opposition (LoP).

On an argument from Billwadal Bhattacharya, the speaker's counsel, Justice Krishna Rao remarked that since two proposals were received by the Speaker, how could he "sitting in his chamber, decide on his own which one is right and which is wrong, without calling the House to prove their majority?" "The complaint (from the two dissenting MLAs) came (to the Speaker) on May 27, and the party correspondence (proposing Chattopadhyay as LoP) came on May 20. So, were you waiting for the objection to come?" the judge asked the Speaker's counsel. The court said the petitioners only challenged how the Speaker appointed another person as LoP, ignoring the proposal of the party, and asked for clarity on the duty of the Speaker under such unique circumstances.

"I agree that their contention is disputed in terms of signature mismatch and all. But rightly or wrongly, the Speaker received a proposal on May 9, then a resolution copy of the party's meeting on May 20. Why did he remain silent? Okay, there's a dispute. But the dispute came only on May 27. On whose proposal was the LoP appointed?" the court posed. "I am asking for the procedure. If you have received one proposal which could be a bogus or an anonymous one, you are continuing to work on that. The police may have initiated an inquiry; it's their duty. In the meantime, you receive a second proposal. So what is the Speaker's duty? Does he decide suo motu between the two, or does he give both an opportunity of hearing?" the judge said.

Justice Rao referred to the June 3 order of Speaker Rathindra Bose in which he rejected TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee's proposal for positions of LoP, deputy LoPs and the party's chief whip, and acknowledged the claims made by Ritabrata Banerjee-led rebel TMC MLAs for alternative names for the posts. "The communication states that 'the other group, which earlier allegedly came, does not possess the required numerical strength to keep the quorum of the House' How have you decided that? First proposal claimed it had the backing of 78 MLAs," he asked Bhattacharya.

On Tuesday, Justice 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 the law. The matter would be taken up for hearing again at 2 pm on Thursday, the court said.