{"id":215434,"date":"2021-09-28T15:08:42","date_gmt":"2021-09-28T09:38:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=215434"},"modified":"2021-09-28T17:55:30","modified_gmt":"2021-09-28T12:25:30","slug":"suvendu-adhikari-west-bengal-speaker","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/suvendu-adhikari-west-bengal-speaker\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court directs West Bengal Speaker to decide on disqualification petition moved by BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Calcutta High Court<\/a> on Tuesday directed the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to decide on the disqualification petition moved by BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari on an urgent basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the hearing of a petition moved by BJP MLA Ambika Roy, challenging the appointment of Mukul Roy as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, a Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that it is the duty of the Court to protect the Constitution and its values and the principles of democracy, which has been held to be a basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Mukul Roy was elected as a member of the State Legislative Assembly on a BJP ticket. The result of the Assembly Election was declared on May 2, 2021. On June 11, Mukul defected from BJP to All India Trinamool Congress (AITC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n On June 17, a petition was filed by Suvendu Adhikari seeking disqualification of Mukul from the Assembly. On June 24, 20 MLAs including Mukul were elected as members of the Committee on Public Accounts. On July 9, the Speaker nominated Mukul as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, treating him to be MLA belonging to BJP, though he had already defected to AITC. It was against the convention admitted by the Speaker himself in the order passed by him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vaidyanathan further submitted that the Committee on Public Accounts is constituted for one year and the idea of the respondents is to let the present petition become infructuous. Firstly, the Speaker is not deciding the petition pending before him alleging defection of Roy from BJP to AITC, which in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly and Others, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 55 is to be decided within a reasonable period which has been held to be maximum three months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kishore Datta, Advocate General, appearing for the state submitted that though the petitioner has tried to use the word constitutional convention in his arguments but the same is not borne out even from the order passed by the Speaker nominating Mukul Roy as the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts. He merely used the term \u2018convention\u2019. The same cannot be taken to be a constitutional convention. As the names of the Chairman of various committees including the Committee on Public Accounts were declared by the Speaker on the floor of the House during the proceedings of the Assembly, the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of India applies for any interference by the Court. As the petitioner is an interested party to the litigation, a petition filed in public interest will not be maintainable. At the most he can bring motion in the Assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate appearing for Mukul Roy contended that it is misconceived to argue that any practice for a short duration can be treated as a constitutional convention. Even an admission made by a Speaker on that account cannot be considered to be a constitutional convention. It cannot be created by one person in the state. Even if seen from the pleadings of the petitioner, intermittently there had been Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts belonging to the opposition party however, it was not a regular practice. Constitutional convention cannot be limited to a state. In any case any admission made by the Speaker will not be binding on Mukul Roy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Counsel for Roy further added that even in the objections filed by the petitioner to the nomination of Mukul Roy as member of the Committee on Public Accounts no such plea was raised. The Constitution of Committee is for a period of one year. It is not provided in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly that nomination has to be proposed and seconded by the member of the same party. Some credence has to be given to the Rules of Business framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 208 of the Constitution of India. It is not provided in the Rules of Business that the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts has to be of any opposition party. It is easy to plead but difficult to prove a constitutional convention. How the same is to be established has been well laid down in judgment of \u00a0the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association\u2019s (1993) case (supra) and K. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 664. Any convention in a state cannot be termed as constitutional convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n