Calcutta HC Questions Speaker’s Recognition Of Rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP Without Party Consent

Calcutta HC Questions Speaker’s Recognition Of Rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP Without Party Consent

The Calcutta High Court questioned whether the West Bengal Assembly Speaker could recognise rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as Leader of Opposition without the political party’s consent, reported Live Law. Petitioners argued the party had nominated Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay and that an expelled member could not hold the post. The case will be heard on June 16.

Vinay MishraUpdated: Thursday, June 11, 2026, 05:38 PM IST
Calcutta HC Questions Speaker’s Recognition Of Rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee As LoP Without Party Consent
Rebel-TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee |

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned whether the Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly could recognise a Leader of Opposition (LoP) without the consent of the political party concerned, while hearing a petition challenging the appointment of rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee to the post, according to a report by Live Law.

Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a plea against the Speaker’s decision to recognise Banerjee as LoP and a Chief Whip despite claims that he had been expelled from the party. The petitioners argued that the party had officially nominated Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay for the post and had communicated its decision to the Speaker on several occasions.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Speaker ignored the party’s decision and instead acted on the support of 59 legislators backing a rival faction. He argued that the Tenth Schedule gives primacy to the political party rather than the legislature party and warned that equating the two would weaken anti-defection safeguards.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the person recognised as LoP was allegedly no longer a member of the party after being expelled and questioned the legal basis for such recognition.

The State opposed interim relief, arguing that the petition lacked complete pleadings and that Assembly records, including the Speaker’s order, were yet to be produced. The Court declined to grant immediate relief and directed the parties to return after the relevant records are placed on record.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 16.