Thread by @LawBeatInd

Calcutta High Court to shortly hear BJP MLA Ambika Roy’s plea challenging BJP turncoat Mukul Roy’s Appointment as the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.
@ambikaroy4bjp
@MukulR_Official
#calcuttahighcourt

Mr. Ambika Roy has pleaded that Mr. Mukul Roy despite winning West Bengal Assembly elections from Krishnanagar Uttar Constituency as a member of BJP, defected, as soon as the results were declared, to the present ruling party AITC without resigning from the BJP.
#WestBengal

CS Vaidyanathan for Ambika Roy: This is for a writ of Quo Warranto.
Speaker has admitted that there is a chairman of the PAC who had been elected on a BJP ticket but moved over to the TMC and that this can continue as this is convention.
@MukulR_Official

Vaidyanathan: Fact that he (@MukulR_Official) changed his party (from BJP to TMC), and thus cannot hold officer (as PAC Chairman) as per 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India.
This is not in consonance with Constitutional Morality and/or with tenets of Dharma.

[Counsel appearing for Ambika Roy include CS Vaidyanathan, Kabir Bose Amit Mishra, @sarthakraizada, Akshay Nagarajan, Kanika Singhal, Nitish Raj, Ms. Thajaswani C.B]
@ambikaroy4bjp

Bench: Is there any election for PAC?
Vaidyanathan: No there was no election.

Vaidyanathan: "Member of opposition as Chairperson of PAC is convention" and this has been stated by the Speaker on floor of the Assembly (vol. @MukulR_Official was still in opposition, i.e. BJP when he was elected. However, he defected to TMC later but continued to hold office)

Vaidyanathan: Speaker was moving forward on the assumption for his (@MukulR_Official) office at the PAC that he belonged to the Opposition but he has now shifted his allegiance (to TMC)

Vaidyanathan: I have already pointed out how this (convention of having an opposition member as PAC chairperson) has been traversed. There is absence of specific denial by person (@MukulR_Official) who has intimate knowledge that he admits he has joined TMC.

"In politics, allegiance shifts and it happens. This is not the first person to shift his loyalties to another party," (Vol. @MukulR_Official is a BJP turncoat to TMC)

"We have no issues with that, question is can he now continue as chairperson of PAC?" Vaidyanathan adds.

Vaidyanathan citing judgments to indicate to the bench that as Mukul Roy changed his allegiance from BJP to TMC, he cannot now hold office as PAC chairman of Assembly #WestBengal

Vaidyanathan: My respectful submission is that it's well settled that constitutional conventions are in the nature of rules or binding precedents which can be enforced and this has been done in respect of appointment of judges, calling upon Governors etc.

"Fact is that @MukulR_Official is not a member of the BJP and he was elected as PAC Chairman when he was."

Vaidyanathan argues that Mukul roy is a BJP Turncoat and is now a member of the TMC, an allegation he has not disputed.

(Tweet not verbatim viz. arguments)

Court says he will hear further arguments after lunch.

Counsel for Respondent says that he is on his Legs in another matter and seeks indulgence (adjournment to another date).

Court will hear further arguments post lunch

Hearing begins.

Counsel for @MukulR_Official begins submissions.

Anindya Mitra for @MukulR_Official: There is no convention as such for appointments made to PAC in assembly. Differences in what they have pleaded and what they have argued.

Mitra responds to Vaidyanathan’s submission that Speakers/Mukul Roy’s Admission of Mukul Roy being a BJP turncoat & continuing to hold office as PAC chairperson is an irrelevant fact. “Individual persons admission is not relevant fact”

Bench: But this is an admission by the Speaker and not an individual (this is a constitutional authority, bench adds). There is a difference.

Nonetheless, the admission itself is not a relevant fact unless published, Mitra argues for @MukulR_Official

Mitra responds to arguments advanced by Vaidyanathan: He (@ambikaroy4bjp) should not be allowed to argue this case.

Mitra appears for @MukulR_Official

Convention not relevant.
Constitutional law applies here. There is no requirement that a PAC chairman needs to be appointed from Opposition: Mitra argues for @MukulR_Official

Mitra is taking the court through American Jurisprudence in order to show Court that Conventions emanate from the Constitution.

Mitra says that the address by Speaker in the context of appointment of chairman of PAC was made in the Assembly.

Mitra is citing Judgments to build on this case.

The case will now be taken up for hearing on Monday and the Speaker of the legislative Assembly will put forth arguments.