'Court Cannot Inquire Into Proceedings Of Legislature Under Article 212': TMC MLA Mukul Roy Argues Before Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Friday heard extensive arguments on behalf of BJP MLA Ambika Roy and TMC MLA Mukul Roy while adjudicating upon the plea challenging the appointment of Mukul Roy as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.  

On July 9, Mukul Roy had been appointed as the Chairman of PAC by the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the year 2021-2022. The plea filed before the Court had contended that on June 11, without officially resigning from the BJP or as the MLA of Krishnanagar Uttar constituency, Mukul Roy had defected to the TMC party on June 11, 2021.

Senior counsel Anindya Kumar Mitra appearing on behalf of Mukul Roy argued before a Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that a 'constitutional convention' cannot be established by the actions of one particular individual while rebutting the submissions extended on behalf of BJP MLA Ambika Roy.

On Friday, senior advocate C.S Vaidyanathan appearing on behalf of Ambika Roy contended that the Speaker of the West Bengal legislative assembly had recognised the existence of a constitutional convention wherein an Opposition member is selected as the PAC Chairman and accordingly the Speaker had appointed Mukul Roy as the PAC Chairman 'under the assumption' that he belonged to the BJP party. 

No uniform practice of appointing Opposition leader as PAC Chairman 

The senior counsel submitted that there exists no uniform practice of appointing an Opposition leader as the PAC Chairman and that there existed no such convention at the commencement of the Constitution for it to qualify as a 'constitutional convention'. The first 4 Legislative Assemblies had a member of the ruling party heading the Public Accounts Committee, he further argued. 

"Practice does not create a constitutional convention', the senior counsel urged. He further relied on Section 31 of the Evidence Act to contend that an admission by the Speaker of the Assembly if at all would not act as 'conclusive proof'. 

Admission of a practice by Speaker of one provisional Assembly cannot assume a convention of a national character 

The senior counsel further contended that admission by a Speaker of one legislative assembly of there being a practice of choosing a member of the Opposition leader as the PAC chairman would not constitute a 'constitutional convention'. This ground is merely an afterthought, it was argued. 

He further submitted that the petitioner had nowhere pleaded in the written submission that a constitutional convention has been breached, such an argument was being raised for the first time during the hearing. In the written submission, the petitioner had merely stated that 'no member of the BJP had either proposed or seconded the name of Mukul Roy' when he had filed the nomination papers. 

Reliance was placed on Rule 255 of the Rules of Business and Conduct of Business to contend that there exists no statutory requirement of appointing a member of the Opposition party as the PAC Chairman. 

"Constitutional convention operates only if there is a grey area", he argued. It was further submitted that in order to constitute a constitutional convention, the practice must 'engulf the entire nation'. 

Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of the legislature under Article 212 

The senior counsel further submitted that the present proceedings are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution as the the Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of the legislature. He further relied on a host of judgments to contend that a 'constitutional convention' cannot be enforced by a civil court. 

The matter is slated to be heard next on September 13.

Case Title: Ambika Roy v. The Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Ors

Arguments extended on behalf of BJP MLA Ambika Roy can be read here.