Calcutta HC Questions Assembly Speaker's Recognition Of Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP: 'Not In Any Party'

Published 11 June 2026 · india

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.