Calcutta HC questions expelled TMC MLA Ritabrata Banerjee’s appointment as LoP by Speaker

The Calcutta High Court questioned whether a state Assembly Speaker could recognise a Member of the Legislative Assembly as Leader of Opposition (LoP) after ...

What Happened

The Calcutta High Court questioned whether a state Assembly Speaker could recognise a Member of the Legislative Assembly as Leader of Opposition (LoP) after that MLA had been expelled from their political party.
The case concerns the West Bengal Assembly Speaker's decision to recognise an expelled MLA as LoP and Chief Whip, bypassing the political party's own nomination of a different MLA for the LoP role.
Petitioners argued that the Speaker's action "hit the Constitution's basic structure" by violating the Tenth Schedule, which governs the relationship between a political party and its legislature party.
A senior advocate appearing for petitioners argued that the political party — not the legislative party — is the competent authority to designate the LoP, and the Speaker is bound by that party decision.
Justice Krishna Rao heard the matter and did not pass any interim order; the next hearing is scheduled for 16 June 2026.
The West Bengal Assembly is scheduled to convene on 18 June 2026, lending urgency to the matter.

Static Topic Bridges

Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) — Relationship Between Political Party and Legislature Party

The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, to curb defection and floor-crossing by legislators. It draws a firm distinction between the "political party" (the parent organisation) and the "legislature party" (its elected members in a House). The Schedule subordinates the legislature party to the political party: a member who defies party direction on a vote, or voluntarily gives up party membership, faces disqualification.

Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule: Disqualification for (a) voluntarily giving up membership of the political party, or (b) voting/abstaining contrary to party direction without prior permission (and the party has not condoned the act within 15 days).
91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003: Removed the one-third split exemption; a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule is also disqualified from holding any remunerative political post (including ministerial office) — inserted via Article 75(1B) for Parliament and analogous state articles.
The Schedule does not automatically address appointments like LoP; this creates a grey area when a member expelled by the party is subsequently recognised by the Speaker in a leadership role.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1993, Supreme Court): Upheld the Tenth Schedule as constitutionally valid; held that the Speaker's decision under the Schedule is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts, despite Para 6 which purports to make it final.

Connection to this news: The core question is whether recognising an expelled member as LoP undermines the Tenth Schedule's foundational principle that the political party controls the legislature party's direction and appointments.

Leader of Opposition — Constitutional and Statutory Status

The Leader of Opposition (LoP) in a state legislature is not defined by the Constitution itself. At the central level, the LoP's salary and facilities are governed by the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. States have analogous legislation. The Speaker (or Chairman) formally recognises the LoP based on the largest opposition group's nomination.

There is no specific constitutional provision designating the process for LoP appointment — it is largely a matter of convention and Speaker's discretion.
The recognised convention: the political party with the largest numerical strength in opposition nominates the LoP; the Speaker accepts the nomination without substantive review.
The LoP enjoys statutory perks equivalent to a Cabinet Minister at the central level; state equivalents vary.
Key significance of the LoP role: statutory appointment authority (e.g., part of selection committees for CBI Director, CVC, Lokpal, NHRC chairperson).
The dispute in the present case is whether the Speaker can exercise independent judgment on which faction of a split/expelled legislature group is the "rightful" LoP, overriding the formal party communication.

Connection to this news: The Speaker's recognition of the expelled MLA as LoP, against the political party's own nomination, raises the question of whether the Speaker's discretion in LoP appointments is bounded by the Tenth Schedule's hierarchy between the political party and its legislature members.

Speaker's Powers and Judicial Review — Article 212 and Kihoto Hollohan

Article 212 of the Constitution provides that courts shall not inquire into proceedings of the legislature. However, the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions where the Speaker acts beyond constitutional jurisdiction or violates fundamental rights. The Kihoto Hollohan judgment (1993) is the foundational precedent: while upholding Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule (finality of Speaker's decision) in principle, it held that the Speaker's orders are nevertheless subject to judicial review on grounds of malafides, perversity, and constitutional violations.

Article 212(1): No proceedings in the Legislature shall be called in question in any court on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
Article 212(2): Officers and members of a Legislature in whom powers are vested are not subject to courts' jurisdiction with respect to exercise of those powers.
Exception: Courts can intervene where the Speaker acts in violation of the Constitution — Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016, SC): the Speaker cannot act on disqualification petitions while a motion for the Speaker's own removal is pending.
Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023, SC): Reaffirmed that the Speaker's decisions under the Tenth Schedule are judicially reviewable.

Connection to this news: The Calcutta High Court's willingness to hear the challenge to the Speaker's LoP recognition rests on this body of precedent — the Speaker's discretionary acts, when they arguably conflict with constitutional norms (Tenth Schedule), are open to judicial scrutiny.

Key Facts & Data

Tenth Schedule inserted by: 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1993): Upheld Tenth Schedule; made Speaker's decisions subject to judicial review.
91st Amendment Act (2003): Removed one-third split exemption; barred disqualified members from holding ministerial posts.
One-third merger exemption remains: a party merger is valid if at least two-thirds of the legislature party joins — such members escape disqualification.
Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act: 1977 (central level).
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) and Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023): Key SC cases expanding judicial review over Speaker's actions.
Next hearing in the Calcutta HC matter: 16 June 2026.
West Bengal Assembly to convene: 18 June 2026.