Court orders Speaker to decide on disqualification petition, sets next action date.

The Court directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition against respondent No. 2 and adjourned the matter to October 07, 2021, for further action based on the Speaker's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Duty of the Court
2. Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner
3. Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3
4. Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent No. 2
5. Reply to the Arguments of the Respondents by the Petitioner
6. Analysis
- Regarding Disqualification Petition
- Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, Constitution of Committees and Importance Thereof
- Constitutional Convention
- Judicial Review
- Quo-Warranto
- Maintainability of PIL
7. Directions

Detailed Analysis:

Duty of the Court:
The Court's duty, as per Smriti Chandrika, is to remove inequity from lawsuits, akin to a surgeon removing a dart. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India emphasized that political complications do not prevent the Court from addressing constitutional questions. The Court must protect constitutional values and democracy, acting as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2, initially elected on a BJP ticket, defected to AITC, and despite this, was nominated as the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, violating established conventions. The Speaker's declaration acknowledged a tradition of appointing opposition members as Chairmen of this Committee. The petitioner cited Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, emphasizing that orders must be justified by their stated reasons.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3:
The respondents contended that the Speaker's actions are protected under Article 212, which bars court scrutiny of legislative proceedings. They argued that the Speaker's nomination of the Chairman is a procedural matter, not subject to judicial review. They also claimed that the petitioner, being an interested party, cannot file a public interest litigation.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent No. 2:
Respondent No. 2 argued that the practice of appointing opposition members as Chairmen cannot be considered a constitutional convention. It was asserted that the Speaker's actions, being part of legislative proceedings, are protected from judicial scrutiny under Article 212.

Reply to the Arguments of the Respondents by the Petitioner:
The petitioner countered that the Speaker's actions involved substantive irregularities, not just procedural ones, thus falling within the scope of judicial review. The petitioner emphasized that the pending disqualification petition against respondent No. 2 should have been decided before his nomination.

Analysis:
I. Regarding Disqualification Petition:
The Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh's case mandated that disqualification petitions must be decided within three months. The Speaker's inaction on the disqualification petition against respondent No. 2, pending since June 17, 2021, violates this mandate.

II. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, Constitution of Committees and Importance Thereof:
The Rules of Business, under Article 208, detail the constitution and functions of Committees, including the Committee on Public Accounts. The Speaker's declaration acknowledged a tradition of appointing opposition members as Chairmen, emphasizing the Committee's critical role in legislative oversight.

III. Constitutional Convention:
The Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's (1993) case established that constitutional conventions, once proven, become part of constitutional law. The Speaker's declaration confirmed a 54-year tradition of appointing opposition members as Chairmen of the Committee on Public Accounts, satisfying the tests for a constitutional convention.

IV. Judicial Review:
Article 212 protects legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny only for procedural irregularities, not substantive illegalities. The Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal's case affirmed that substantive illegality or unconstitutionality in legislative actions is subject to judicial review.

V. Quo-Warranto:
The Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur's case held that appointments contrary to constitutional provisions could be challenged through quo-warranto. The petitioner's challenge to respondent No. 2's appointment as Chairman, given the pending disqualification petition, is valid.

VI. Maintainability of PIL:
The PIL is maintainable as it raises significant constitutional issues regarding democratic principles and legislative procedures.

Directions:
The Court directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition against respondent No. 2 and adjourned the matter to October 07, 2021, for further action based on the Speaker's decision.

This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment are preserved, providing a detailed and thorough understanding of the issues and the Court's reasoning.

---