The Calcutta High Court reserved its order on a plea challenging the appointment of rebel TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition, questioning the Speaker’s authority to ignore the party’s recommendation of Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday reserved its order raising questions over whether the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly could have recognised an expelled Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLA as the Leader of Opposition (LoP), despite the party’s official recommendation of another legislator for the post.
Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a petition filed by senior TMC leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, who has challenged the Speaker’s decision to appoint rebel TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the LoP in the 18th West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The Court reserved its order on Chattopadhyay’s interim relief plea.
During the hearing, the Court examined whether the Speaker could disregard the resolution forwarded by the political party and instead rely on the support of a group of MLAs who had opposed the party’s decision. The Bench also questioned whether mere allegations of forgery in relation to MLA signatures could justify ignoring the original resolution submitted by the TMC recommending Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as the LoP.
The Court asked:
“On mere allegation of FIR, can you say that there is forgery unless and until it is decided by competent authority or competent court? If your Speaker has taken into consideration that there is an allegation of forgery and FIR, there is no necessity to hear the other party?”
The Court further questioned whether the Speaker was required to give both sides an opportunity to present their case before making a decision in a disputed matter involving the appointment of the LoP.
Another key issue before the Court was whether the Speaker could recognise Ritabrata Banerjee after being informed that he and another MLA had allegedly been expelled from the TMC. The Bench rejected the argument that the expulsion was merely an internal party matter with no consequences for the Speaker’s decision-making process.
The Court observed:
“You cannot say no consequences once one party is telling that it is expelled member and it has been intimated to the Speaker, and (then) the Speaker is appointing the same person,”
The Court indicated that once the Speaker was informed about the expulsion, the issue could not simply be ignored while recognising the same person for a constitutional position within the Assembly.
The matter remains pending for the Court’s final order.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after the West Bengal Assembly election results were declared on May 4, 2026. According to the petitioner’s case, a meeting of TMC MLAs was held on May 6, where Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was selected as the party’s choice for the post of Leader of Opposition.
The decision was subsequently communicated to the Speaker’s office. However, the Speaker sought additional documents, including the resolution and minutes of the legislative party meeting along with signatures of MLAs.
Following this, another meeting was reportedly held on May 19, after which the resolution and attendance records were again submitted to the Speaker.
Despite these communications, the Speaker allegedly recognised Ritabrata Banerjee as the LoP based on support extended by a group of rebel TMC MLAs. Chattopadhyay then approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the decision.
Arguments of Parties:
Speaker’s Side Defends Recognition: Appearing for the Speaker, Additional Advocate General Bilwadal Bhattacharya argued that the TMC’s internal communication recommending Chattopadhyay could not be treated as decisive. He submitted that neither the TMC national general secretary nor the party chairperson was present during the meeting where Chattopadhyay was selected.
According to Bhattacharya, the resolution forwarded by the party’s general secretary was therefore merely “hearsay”. He argued that the situation was different when 56 out of 58 rebel MLAs were physically present and supported Ritabrata Banerjee’s appointment as LoP.
The Court, however, questioned why the earlier representation submitted by the party had been ignored.
The Bench remarked:
“You are telling 56 present… you have ignored the first representation. Till date, no explanation is coming why you have ignored the first,”
Bhattacharya responded that the majority view of legislators should determine the appointment, pointing out that the rebel MLAs had participated in the meeting and expressed their choice. The Court noted that the earlier resolution relied upon by Chattopadhyay had the support of 78 MLAs.
Ritabrata Banerjee’s Counsel Defends Appointment: Senior Advocate Jaydip Kar, appearing for Ritabrata Banerjee and Chief Whip MLA Akhruzzaman, defended the Speaker’s decision. He argued that the relevant consideration was the numerical strength of legislators in the Assembly and that the Speaker had acted correctly by considering majority support.
Kar stated:
“The only rule which is available is the rule which talks about numerical strength,”
When the Court questioned how Ritabrata Banerjee could be treated as a TMC member after his expulsion, Kar submitted that the expulsion order had been stayed by a competent court.
He argued that the matter did not involve defection or disqualification proceedings but was limited to a dispute over who should occupy the position of Leader of Opposition and who should be appointed Chief Whip.
Kar contended:
“Both the groups belong to the same political party. The identity of the party has not been broken. The fight is only with regard to who is going to be the Leader of Opposition and who is going to the Chief Whip,”
Chattopadhyay’s Argument: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, argued that the Speaker could not choose the LoP without considering the decision of the political party itself. He submitted that the parent political party, and not merely the legislative wing, has the authority to decide its representative for the position.
Bandopadhyay argued:
“Parent is political party, then the legislative party,”
He questioned whether a single political party could effectively have two competing groups making separate claims for constitutional posts.
He further submitted:
“Today if the Speaker’s decision is allowed, then political party’s decision will not be implemented,”
![[Breaking] Delhi Court Extends Manish Sisodia's Judicial Custody till May 30 in Excise policy Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image-167.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
