Kolkata: West Bengal assembly speaker Biman Banerjee should have first decided the petition to disqualify Mukul Roy under the anti-defection law before appointing him as chairman of the assembly’s public accounts committee, the Calcutta high court said on Tuesday as it ordered the speaker to produce the record of the action taken on the disqualification petition filed in June.

The verdict, which is seen as a huge setback to the ruling Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress and its leader Mukul Roy, set October 7 as the deadline for the speaker to place the action taken by him before the court. “In case of failure, this court will decide further course of action to be taken in the matter,” the court said.

In a 69-page strongly-worded verdict, a bench led by acting chief justice Rajesh Bindal rejected the argument that the court did not have jurisdiction over actions of the speaker, underlining that the court would have been debarred from entertaining the petition if it was a case of “procedural irregularities”. But “it is a case of blatant illegality,” the bench also comprising justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, said. HT has reviewed a copy of the order.

The speaker apparently “worked on dictates”, “was caught in the web knitted by him”, and failed to “discharge his constitutional duty coupled with established admitted constitutional conventions, the high court said on a petition by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Ambika Roy.

Ambika Roy challenged Mukul Roy’s appointment as chairman of the assembly’s public accounts committee (PAC) on July 9. On Monday, leader of the opposition in the assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, also moved the court seeking Mukul Roy’s disqualification as a member of the assembly under the anti-defection law.

Mukul Roy, who joined the BJP in 2017, returned to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) on June 11. He, however, did not resign from the BJP. On June 18, Adhikari petitioned the speaker to seek Mukul Roy’s disqualification On July 9, the speaker appointed him as chairman of the PAC, a post which has, by convention, always gone to an opposition party legislator.

The court faulted the speaker for appointing Mukul Roy to this position without taking a call on the petition for his disqualification, asserting that the two were connected.

“In fact, the respondent No. 1 (the speaker) should have first decided the petition for disqualification of the respondent No. 2 (Mukul Roy) and thereafter, considering his eligibility, should have taken steps to appoint him as the chairman of the committee on public accounts,” the judges said.

“Failure on the part of the speaker to adjudicate upon that petition despite the maximum period provided thereof having expired, is creating more trouble as a result of which the interference of this court has been called for”.

The judges also cited the Supreme Court verdict in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), where the court held that disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should be decided either within a reasonable timeframe or within three months.

The bench noted that the maximum three-month period prescribed by the Supreme Court for a decision on an anti-defection petition expired on September 16.

“It is much more than that (mere irregularity) if seen coupled with the fact that despite judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court the speaker is sitting tight on the matter on decision of disqualification of the respondent No. 2 (Mukul Roy).

“…rather it is the illegality committed by the Speaker in nominating a person, who had in fact defected from BJP to AITC. In case the petition for his disqualification is allowed, he cannot even be a Member of the House, hence, not eligible to be a Member of the Committee, what to talk of its Chairman,” the bench said.

TMC leaders did not comment on the order, saying the matter is sub judice.

Samik Bhattacharya, chief spokesperson of the Bengal BJP, said, “This is the first time in the history of parliamentary democracy that a speaker has been reminded by a court that he has acted autocratically. The speaker has clearly been shown his position.”