India

Calcutta High Court on Rebel MLA Recognition and Anti-defection Rules

Friday, June 12, 2026
5 min read
Calcutta High Court on Rebel MLA Recognition and Anti-defection Rules

The Calcutta High Court got involved here on Thursday. It was all about how a rebel MLA was recognized as the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly. The court started raising serious questions about the whole process. Could that decision really be made without some sort of approval from the political party the legislator had supposedly been expelled from?

Justice Krishna Rao , hearing the petition, made these observations. He looked at the challenge against the Assembly Speaker’s choice to recognize MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP and appoint a Chief Whip backed by a bunch of dissident legislators.

The petitioners argued that Banerjee had actually left the party after he was expelled. So, they claimed he couldn't be recognized as opposition leader on behalf of that party at all.

Justice Rao pushed back hard on this. He remarked something pointed: “Can the Speaker recognize the rebel leader without the consent of the political party? The person appointed as LoP isn’t in any party. He has been expelled.”

Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay , who was arguing for the petitioners, immediately asked for a stay. He felt that recognizing Banerjee just didn't line up with how constitutional principles actually handle political parties and legislative bodies under anti-defection rules .

Bandopadhyay brought up some points about what happened previously. There had been a meeting of elected MLAs back in May six. Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay was picked as the party’s nominee for Leader of Opposition then. They argued that signatures from supporting MLAs were collected for Chattopadhyay, and the Speaker had been told about the party's decision multiple times before this went down.

But even with all that, it seemed the Speaker just moved ahead. He recognized a rival group supported by fifty-nine legislators instead.

Bandopadhyay pointed to Supreme Court rulings things about political party mergers and even the Maharashtra crisis. He insisted the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution gives priority to the actual political party, not just whatever legislative grouping existed at that moment.

“The decision made by the political party must be accepted by the Speaker,” he submitted before the Bench. “Not just the legislature party.”

They contended that prioritizing the sheer number of legislators over what the parent political party decided would just weaken anti-defection law . They felt those recognized legislators were already expelled and hadn't fought those expulsion orders themselves. How, they asked, could the Speaker then recognize them as LoP?

The petitioners also pushed for immediate action before the Assembly reconvenes on June 18. They argued that things like seating arrangements and other House decisions depended entirely on the Speaker’s recognition order. So, they requested some interim protection right away.

During the hearing itself, the Bench kept asking a very specific question: Was there actually a formal order recognizing the Leader of Opposition that was issued and made available? The court noted that this needed to be looked at before anything else could be considered in the challenge.

Opposing this need for immediate relief, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya argued against it. He felt the petition wasn't complete. It lacked a specific request asking the court to overturn the Speaker’s decision entirely.

He suggested that Assembly records could be found through normal House rules and asked for time to put those documents in front of the court. Furthermore, he stated the State would file an affidavit with all the relevant records including the order being challenged and they would object to whether the petition was even maintainable. He argued the requests were mostly about declarations rather than immediate interim orders.

After hearing both sides, the High Court didn't grant any immediate protective directions. Instead of that, the court ordered that the Speaker’s order and all related records must be presented to them for examination first.

The matter is now scheduled to come back before the court again on June 16.

Written by Gree News Team — Senior Editorial Board

Gree News Team covers international news and global affairs at Gree News. Our collective of senior editors is dedicated to providing independent, accurate, and responsible journalism for a global audience.

#sensational#india#global#trending

More from India

View All

Latest Headlines