The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday questioned whether the Speaker of West Bengal Legislative Assembly could have recognized an expelled member of Trinamool Congress as the Leader of Opposition (LoP).

The Court was hearing a petition filed by senior Trinamool Congress leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay challenging the Speaker’s decision to appoint rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the LoP in the 18th West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

Justice Krishna Rao today reserved its decision on Chattopadhyay's plea seeking interim relief.

The judge also asked whether an allegation that MLA signatures were forged was sufficient to ignore the original resolution sent by the party for appointment of MLA Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay as the LoP instead of now expelled MLA Ritabrata Banerjee.

"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 asked.

The Court asked whether the Speaker could still have gone ahead with his decision after receiving a communication about the expulsion of rebel MLAs.

It rejected the argument that the expulsion was inconsequential since it was an internal matter of the party.

"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 Bench said.

After the West Bengal Assembly election results were declared on May 4, a meeting of TMC MLAs is stated to have been held on May 6. At this meeting, Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was nominated as the LoP. The decision was later communicated to the Speaker’s office.

The Speaker, however, called for a resolution and the minutes of the meeting from the legislative party. The party is then said to have held another meeting on May 19. Following that, the resolution and attendance sheet were forwarded to the Speaker.

However, the Speaker allegedly ignored these communications and proceeded to recognise Ritabrata Banerjee as the LoP on the basis of support allegedly extended by a rebel group of TMC MLAs.

This has been challenged by Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay before the Calcutta High Court.

In yesterday's hearing of the matter, the Court remarked that the Speaker appeared to have been “keen” to accept the decision of rebel TMC MLAs to appoint their LoP in the house, contrary to the party's official pick for the post.

Today, Additional Advocate General Bilwadal Bhattacharya, representing the Speaker, submitted that neither the TMC's national general secretary nor the party chairperson was present in the TMC meeting held to choose the LoP.

Thus, the resolution provided by TMC's general secretary was "hearsay", argued Bhattacharya. He added that in contrast, 56 of the 58 rebel MLAs were present when they decided to elect a particular MLA (Ritabrata Banerjee) as LoP.

The Court then asked whether the Speaker was not required to give an opportunity of hearing before deciding on such a disputed matter. It also asked why the earlier resolution of the party was ignored.

"You are telling 56 present... you have ignored the first representation. Till date, no explanation is coming why you have ignored the first," the Bench said.

Bhattacharya responded that since 56 of 58 MLAs were physically present on June 3, there was nothing more required to be done. However, the Court pointed out that the earlier resolution was by 78.

Bhattacharya said the recognition of LoP was based on the will expressed by the majority of legislators. He added that no notice had been given to the rebel MLAs before their expulsion from the party.

Senior Advocate Jaydip Kar, representing LoP Ritabrata Banerjee and Chief Whip MLA Akhruzzaman, said the Speaker had acted in correct manner by relying upon the numerical strength of the MLAs.

"The only rule which is available is the rule which talks about numerical strength," Kar added.

The Court then asked how the Speaker considered Ritabrata Banerjee to be a member of TMC, given that he had been expelled from the party. Kar responded that the expulsion has been stayed by a competent court.

He added that there was no defection or disqualification in the case but only a dispute over the appointment of LoP.

"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," Kar contended.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, said that the Speaker could not have chosen the LoP without taking into consideration the will of the political party.

He said that even the party chairperson could have decided the choice of LoP.

"Parent is political party, then the legislative party," Bandopadhyay said.

He asked whether a political party can have two blocks.

"Today if the Speaker's decision is allowed, then political party's decision will not be implemented," Bandopadhyay submitted.