OD-1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/361/2026 KUNAL KUMAR GHOSH Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date : 07TH August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacherjee, Adv. Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Neelanjana Ghorui, Adv. Ms. A. Bhattacharya, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rajdeep Mantha, Adv. …for the State Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pijush Biswas, Adv. Mr. Abhisek, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rauth, Adv. …for the respondent No.4 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for following reliefs: “(a)A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent No. 3 the Hon'ble Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, to permit and ensure the Petitioner, being an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly to participate in the proceedings, debates, discussions and deliberations of the House in accordance with the Constitution of India and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly; 2 b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to formulate and/or follow a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure for allocation of opportunities to Members of the House to participate in debates and discussions, and to ensure that the Petitioner is not excluded from such participation on account of his political affiliation, dissenting views or position as a Member of the Opposition; c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner, being an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly cannot be arbitrarily, selectively, discriminatorily or mala fide prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House or from addressing the House, except in accordance with the Constitution of India and the applicable Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business; d) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the exercise of the powers of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly under the Constitution of India and the applicable Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business is subject to the requirements of constitutional fairness, non-arbitrariness and impartiality, and cannot be exercised for the purpose of suppressing legitimate dissent or preventing the effective participation of an elected Opposition Member; e) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to preserve and produce before this Hon'ble Court the relevant records, proceedings, agenda, list of speakers, notices, communications, directions, video recordings and other materials relating to the occasions on which the Petitioner was denied or prevented from participating in debates and/or speaking in the House and certify and transmit the records pertaining to the instant case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be rendered upon perusal of the same. f) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, direct the Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner is not prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House or from speaking in debates and discussions, except in accordance with a specific, lawful and reasoned order passed under the Constitution of India and the applicable Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business; g) Pass an order directing that the Petitioner be afforded a reasonable to and effective opportunity participate in all future debates and discussions in which he is entitled to participate under the Constitution of India and the applicable Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business; h) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; h) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers (a) to (g) above; i) Costs; 3 j) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed, and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The petitioner is sitting member of Legislative Assembly of West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Since very inception of becoming an MLA, the petitioner is functioning as a prominent MLA of the Mamta Banerjee – Led TMC function as one of its principal political voices inside and outside the Assembly. 3. The petitioner always raised his voices and criticized any bill, motion, resolution placed by the government, the respondent No.4 being the chief whip of the opposition from rebel TMC MLA never sent the name of the petitioner to the speaker so that the petitioner may allow to participate in any debate in the Assembly with regard to any bill, motion, resolution as taken by the Government and without any debate the said bill, motion, resolution passed in the Assembly. 4. The main grievance of the present writ application that the petitioner has not been allowing to speak on the Assembly to raise any query at the time of debate. He further submits that several bills have been passed like West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2026, Police Budget, Finance Bill, Municipal Affairs Budget, but the petitioner has not been given the opportunity to raise any objection or to speak on the bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly. He prays for a direction upon the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to permit and ensure the petitioner being the elected member of the Legislative Assembly to get an opportunity to raise objection or to speak in the Legislative Assembly. 4 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised the point of maintainability and submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He referred to Article 212 of the Constitution of India and submits that the validity of the proceeding in the legislature of the State shall not be called in question in nature on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has been given an opportunity to speak twice but the petitioner has suppressed the said fact and made out a case that the petitioner has not been given any chance to speak. 7. Article 212 of the Constitution of India reads as follows : 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers. 8. The main grievance of the present writ application is that the petitioner is the elected sitting member of the Legislative Assembly but he has not been given an opportunity to speak in the Assembly. He has pointed out that the four bills have been passed by the Assembly but in none of the bills the petitioner was given any chance to speak or object to the said bills. 9. Article 212(1) makes a provision which is relevant. It lays down that the validity of any proceeding in the legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. Article 5 212(2) confers immunity on the officers and members of the legislature in whom powers are vested by or under Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the legislature from being subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers. Article 212(1) seems to make it possible for citizen to call in question in appropriate Court of law the validity of any proceedings inside the legislative chamber if his case is that the said proceedings suffers not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be securitized in a Court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is not more than that the procedure was irregular. 10. Considering the above, this Court finds that the writ application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, WPO/361/2026 is dismissed. 12. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner can raise all the grievances before the Legislative Assembly. (KRISHNA RAO, J.) mg/S.De