Calcutta HC Questions Assembly Speaker's Recognition Of Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP: 'Not In Any Party'
Calcutta HC Questions Assembly Speaker's Recognition Of Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP: 'Not In Any Party' Published By, Last Updated: June 11, 2026, 17:32 IST Calcutta
Calcutta HC Questions Assembly Speaker's Recognition Of Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP: 'Not In Any Party' Published By, Last Updated: June 11, 2026, 17:32 IST Calcutta High Court sought the Assembly Speaker's order on recognising a rebel MLA as LoP, while questioning if such recognition can bypass the political party's consent. A file photo of Ritabrata Banerjee (PTI) The Calcutta High Court on Thursday raised concerns over the process through which a rebel MLA was recognised as the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the West Bengal Assembly, questioning whether such a decision could be taken without the approval of the political party from which the legislator had allegedly been expelled. According to court proceedings reported by Live Law, Justice Krishna Rao made the observations while hearing a petition challenging the Assembly Speaker’s decision to recognise rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition and appoint a Chief Whip backed by a group of dissident legislators. During the proceedings, the court took note of the petitioners’ argument that Banerjee had ceased to be a member of the political party after his expulsion and therefore could not be recognised as the opposition leader on behalf of that party. Questioning the Speaker’s decision, Justice Rao remarked, “Can the Speaker recognise the rebel leader without the consent of the political part the person appointed as LoP is not in any party.
He has been expelled." Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, sought an interim stay on the Speaker’s action. He argued that the recognition of Banerjee was inconsistent with the constitutional principles governing political parties and legislative parties under the anti-defection framework. Bandopadhyay told the court that a meeting of elected MLAs had been held on May 6, where Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was selected as the party’s nominee for the post of Leader of Opposition. He submitted that signatures of supporting MLAs were collected and submitted in favour of Chattopadhyay, and that the Speaker had been informed of the party’s decision on several occasions. Despite this, the Speaker allegedly proceeded to recognise a rival group supported by 59 legislators. Referring to Supreme Court rulings relating to political party mergers and the Maharashtra political crisis, Bandopadhyay argued that the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution gives primacy to the political party rather than merely the legislative party. “The decision of the political party must be accepted by the Speaker. Not of the legislature party," he submitted before the Bench. According to the petitioners, accepting the numerical strength of legislators over the decision of the parent political party would dilute the anti-defection law. Bandopadhyay further contended that the legislators who had been recognised were already expelled from the party and had not challenged those expulsion orders.
Questioning the legal basis of the Speaker’s decision, he asked, “How can the Speaker recognise them as LoP then?" The petitioners also sought urgent intervention from the court before the Assembly reconvenes on June 18. They argued that further steps, including seating arrangements and other House-related decisions, could follow from the Speaker’s recognition order and therefore requested interim protection. During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly asked whether a formal order recognising the Leader of Opposition had been issued and made available. The court observed that such an order would need to be examined before any further consideration of the challenge. Opposing the request for interim relief, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya argued that the petition was incomplete and did not contain a specific prayer seeking to set aside the Speaker’s decision. He submitted that Assembly records could be obtained through procedures prescribed under the House rules and sought time to place the relevant documents before the court. Bhattacharya informed the Bench that the State would file an affidavit along with all relevant records, including the order being challenged, and would also raise objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. He further argued that the reliefs sought were largely declaratory in nature and therefore did not justify interim orders at this stage.
After hearing both sides, the High Court declined to pass any immediate protective directions. Instead, it directed that the Speaker’s order and related records be produced before the court for examination. The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on June 16. News18 Newsletter Handpicked stories, in your inbox A newsletter with the best of our journalism submit About the Author Vani Mehrotra Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has more than 10 years of experience in national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks. First Published: June 11, 2026, 17:32 IST News india Calcutta HC Questions Assembly Speaker's Recognition Of Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP: 'Not In Any Party' Disclaimer: Comments reflect users’ views, not News18’s. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Loading comments...
The BriefWire