Calcutta HC Refuses Interim Relief to AITC MLA Challenging Speaker's Recognition of Rival Leader of Opposition

Justice Krishna Rao declined to restrain the Speaker-recognised Leader of Opposition, finding no prima facie case where 58 AITC MLAs personally appeared before the Speaker and the petitioner's resolution was under police investigation for alleged forgery.

The High Court at Calcutta, on 18 June 2026, refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the Speaker-recognised Leader of Opposition and Chief Whip of the All India Trinamool Congress from functioning in those roles in the 18th West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Justice Krishna Rao, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, found no prima facie case and no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay, an AITC MLA elected from Ballygunge. The refusal came against the backdrop of a disputed party resolution, an FIR for alleged signature forgery, a civil court stay on the petitioner's expulsion notice, and a rival claim by 58 AITC legislators who personally appeared before the Speaker.

The Dispute Before the Court

In the 2026 West Bengal Assembly Election, the BJP secured 207 seats and the AITC secured 80 seats, making AITC the second-largest party in the 18th Assembly. On 6 May 2026, approximately 70 AITC legislators assembled at the party headquarters. At that meeting, presided over by Firhad Hakim, the petitioner was nominated as Leader of the Opposition. Smt. Asima Patra and Smt. Nayna Bandyopadhyay were designated Deputy Leaders, and Firhad Hakim was proposed as Chief Whip.

On 9 May 2026, the National General Secretary of the AITC wrote to the Speaker requesting recognition of these appointments. No resolution was enclosed with that letter. The Speaker's office, on 18 May 2026, asked for the minutes and resolution of the 6 May meeting along with member signatures. On 20 May 2026, the National General Secretary forwarded the Resolution Book and an attendance sheet bearing signatures dated 6 May 2026.

The petitioner's own writ petition, however, acknowledged that the resolution was actually signed by members on 19 May 2026 — not on 6 May 2026. This admission became a central point of attack by the respondents.

On 27 May 2026, respondent no. 5 and one Mr. Sandipan Saha wrote to the Speaker alleging that the resolution did not reflect the true state of affairs, that they had never consented to the petitioner's nomination, and that many signatures in the document were in block letters and did not belong to the persons named. The Speaker's office verified the signatures against the Roll of Members and lodged a complaint with the police. Hare Street Police Station registered FIR No. 98 of 2026 under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On 1 June 2026, the AITC Vice President informed the Speaker that respondent no. 5 and Mr. Sandipan Saha had been expelled from the party's primary membership with immediate effect. The same day, the National General Secretary again requested the Speaker to recognise the petitioner as Leader of Opposition. The Speaker's office, however, declined to accept the notice when AITC members attempted to serve it in person; the notice was left on the Speaker's table and videographed, and subsequently emailed on 2 June 2026.

On 3 June 2026, 58 AITC MLAs — out of the party's total of 80 — submitted a joint representation to the Speaker selecting respondent no. 5 as Leader of Opposition. Of those 58, 56 appeared personally before the Speaker. The Speaker then passed an order recognising respondent no. 5 as Leader of Opposition and respondent no. 6 as Chief Whip. The petitioner filed W.P.O. No. 276 of 2026 seeking an injunction restraining both from functioning in those roles.

The Legal Issues Argued

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Speaker had bypassed the formal request of the AITC as a political party and instead acted on a representation from a group of legislators who, he contended, did not constitute a political party. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 719, for the proposition that the Tenth Schedule draws a clear distinction between a “political party” and a “legislature party,” and that directions under the Schedule must come from the political party, not merely a numerical majority of legislators.

The petitioner's counsel also pointed to Clause 1(c) of the Tenth Schedule, which defines “original political party” in relation to a member as the political party to which the member belongs for the purposes of Paragraph 2(1). The argument was that recognising a breakaway group of 58 MLAs as the effective party for the purpose of appointing a Leader of Opposition would hollow out the anti-defection framework.

Learned AAG Billwadal Bhattacharya, for respondent nos. 1 to 3, raised a threshold objection: the petitioner had challenged the Speaker's order of appointment without placing that order on record. He also pointed to the internal contradiction in the writ petition — paragraph 14 admitted the resolution was signed on 19 May 2026, while paragraph 17 described it as a resolution of 6 May 2026. He relied on Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, for the principle that suppression of material facts disentitles a petitioner to equitable relief, and on State of M.P. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co., (1997) 1 SCC 156, for the limited supervisory nature of Article 226 jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Jaydip Kar, for respondent nos. 5 and 6, relied on Explanation II to Section 3 of The Bengal Legislative Assembly (Members' Emoluments) Act, 1937. That provision states that if any doubt arises as to which party in opposition has the greatest numerical strength, or as to who is the Leader of that party, the question shall be decided by the Speaker, and his decision, certified in writing, shall be final and conclusive. Mr. Kar argued that the Speaker had conducted an enquiry, found the resolution disputed, and then acted on the numerical majority of 58 MLAs who personally appeared before him.

Mr. Kar also relied on Kailash Nath Singh Yadav v. Speaker, Vidhan Sabha, Lucknow, 1992 SCC OnLine All 117, where the Allahabad High Court held that recognition of a Leader of Opposition relates to the conduct of business of the House and that the Speaker, when exercising that power, is not subject to the jurisdiction of any court by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Krishna Rao did not resolve the constitutional questions about the distinction between political party and legislature party at the interim stage. The refusal of interim relief rested on the factual matrix as it stood on the date of hearing.

The court noted that the National General Secretary's letter of 9 May 2026 requested appointment of the petitioner as Leader of Opposition but enclosed no resolution. When the Speaker asked for the resolution, the document eventually produced bore signatures dated 6 May 2026, yet the petitioner's own writ petition acknowledged those signatures were obtained on 19 May 2026. This discrepancy had led the Speaker's office to refer the matter to the police, and FIR No. 98 of 2026 was registered. The investigation was pending.

The court also took note of the civil court proceedings. Respondent no. 5 had produced before the High Court a copy of an order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 846 of 2026 dated 15 June 2026, staying the effect of the expulsion notice against respondent no. 5 until 30 June 2026. That stay meant the expulsion — which the AITC had communicated to the Speaker on 1 June 2026 — was itself under legal challenge and could not be treated as a concluded fact.

Against this background, the court found that 58 out of 80 AITC MLAs had jointly submitted their request, 56 had appeared personally before the Speaker, and the Speaker had conducted an enquiry before passing the order of 3 June 2026. The resolution relied upon by the petitioner was in dispute and under police investigation. The expulsion of respondent no. 5 was stayed by a civil court. On these facts, the court concluded there was no prima facie case and no balance of convenience in favour of granting the injunction sought.

Outcome

Justice Krishna Rao refused the interim order on 18 June 2026. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 continue to function as Leader of Opposition and Chief Whip of the AITC in the 18th West Bengal Legislative Assembly pending final disposal of the writ petition.

The respondents were directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within three weeks, with the petitioner's reply to follow within two weeks thereafter. The matter is listed for further hearing on 28 July 2026.