The political battle over the post of Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the West Bengal Assembly reached the Calcutta High Court on Thursday, with Trinamool Congress (TMC) nominee Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay arguing that the Speaker’s decision to appoint expelled party leader Ritabrata Banerjee to the position violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
Representing Chattopadhyay before Justice Krishna Rao, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee contended that the decision taken by the Speaker was contrary to constitutional principles and ignored the authority of the parent political party. He informed the court that the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC had officially communicated its decision to nominate Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as the Leader of Opposition. According to him, the authority to choose the LoP rests with the political party itself and not with a legislative faction or breakaway group formed within the Assembly. He maintained that once the party communicates its choice, the Speaker is obligated to recognise that nominee.
During the hearing, Kalyan Banerjee strongly criticised the Speaker’s action, stating that it undermines constitutional norms and strikes at the very foundation of the constitutional framework. He argued that the Speaker had exceeded his authority by recognising an expelled leader instead of the official nominee chosen by the political party.
The case has been filed by Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay along with TMC chairperson Mamata Banerjee. They have challenged the Speaker’s decision to recognise Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition after he claimed the support of 57 other TMC legislators and positioned himself as the head of a breakaway faction within the party. The petitioners have also questioned the Speaker’s decision to recognise Sandipan Saha, another leader associated with the dissident group, as the Chief Whip in the Assembly.
Seeking urgent relief from the court, Kalyan Banerjee requested an interim stay on the Speaker’s orders, pointing out that the Assembly is scheduled to convene on June 18. He argued that allowing the disputed appointments to continue until the next stage of proceedings could create complications in the functioning of the House.
Appearing on behalf of the Speaker, counsel Billwadal Bhattacharya requested additional time to file an affidavit responding to the allegations and legal arguments presented by the petitioners. After hearing both sides, Justice Krishna Rao chose not to issue any interim order at this stage and instead fixed June 16 as the date for the next hearing of the matter.
While presenting his arguments, Kalyan Banerjee also referred to past precedents and long-standing practices in West Bengal regarding the appointment of the Leader of Opposition. He claimed that traditionally, the Speaker has recognised the individual nominated by the political party that constitutes the opposition rather than relying solely on the strength of a legislative faction within the Assembly. According to him, this established convention reinforces the authority of the political party in determining who should occupy the position.
The senior advocate further emphasised that Mamata Banerjee is the founder and chairperson of the Trinamool Congress and that the party remains the largest opposition force in the present Assembly after securing 80 seats in the state election held in May. He argued that the accepted practice has always been to appoint the MLA officially selected by the party leadership as the Leader of Opposition.
Kalyan Banerjee also informed the court that both Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha had already been expelled from the Trinamool Congress. Consequently, he argued that the faction led by them cannot be treated as a legitimate legislative party and should instead be recognised merely as a separate group. He maintained that the original political party retains the legal and organisational rights associated with the party’s status and identity, and therefore, its decision regarding the appointment of the Leader of Opposition should prevail.
