Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Relief in Bengal Assembly Opposition Leader Appointment Case

PTI, June 18, 2026, Kolkata : The Calcutta High Court on Thursday refused any interim order on the West Bengal Assembly Speaker Rathindra Bose's decision to appoint breakaway TMC group MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition.

TMC legislator Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay moved the court, challenging the rejection of his nomination for the post and the appointment of Banerjee as the Leader of Opposition by the Speaker.

Justice Krishna Rao, refusing any interim order as prayed for by Chattopadhyay on the Speaker's decision, directed that the matter would appear for hearing again on July 28.

With the budget session of the state assembly commencing on Thursday, and scheduled to conclude business on June 25, the court's refusal to intervene in the matter effectively meant that the Speaker-approved office-bearers of the rebel TMC group would continue to function in their respective positions for now.

The Speaker granted approval of Banerjee as LoP, Javed Khan, Sandipan Saha, Sabina Yeasmin, and Seuli Saha as deputy leaders and Akhruzzaman as the chief whip.

The court directed the respondents in the petition to file affidavits within three weeks.

The petitioner will have the opportunity to reply to the affidavits within the subsequent two weeks, Justice Rao said.

The breakaway group has claimed the support of 58 of the total 80 TMC MLAs in the West Bengal Assembly.

Chattopadhyay, who belongs to the Mamata Banerjee-led group, had sought an interim order by the court on the ground that the first session of the 18th West Bengal Assembly was scheduled to commence on Thursday.

During the course of its hearings, the court, while making observations, raised questions over the procedure followed by the Assembly Speaker in appointing the LoP when two conflicting proposals were received from the same political party for the office-bearer positions.

The bench remarked that since two proposals were received by the Speaker, how could he, "sitting in his chamber, decide on his own which one is right and which is wrong, without calling the House to prove their majority?"

The court had sought clarity on the Speaker's duty under such circumstances, whether he decides suo motu between the two, or does he need to give both an opportunity of hearing.

The judge had also asked the additional advocate general and the Speaker's counsel, Billwadal Bhattacharya, whether he was waiting for an objection from the dissidents to come after the initial proposal of office-bearers was sent by the party.