Patna HC stays recognition of Nitish as JD(U) Legislature Party leader

The Speaker of the Assembly had last week recognised Kumar as head of the legislative party after Manjhi was expelled from the JD(U)

In an apparent setback to Nitish Kumar, who is making a quick bid to become the chief minister of Bihar, the Patna High Court on Wednesday virtually stayed his recognition as the leader of the Janata Dal (United) Legislature Party, JD(U) LP, in place of Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi.

“We intend to examine the legal implication of the letter issued by in-charge secretary of Assembly (recognising Kumar as leader of JD(U) LP) so that the letter should have no legal consequences for a decision by the governor,” a high court bench said in its order.

The court said it would hear the matter again on Wednesday next.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice L N Reddy and Justice Vikash Jain gave the direction on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by JD(U) legislator Rajeshwar Raj, who is siding with Manjhi.

The court’s order could come in the way of Kumar’s immediate bid to claim chief ministership with the governor yet to take a decision on the claims and counterclaims of the two sides.

After a legislature party meeting on Monday in which the JD(U) replaced defiant Manjhi by electing Kumar as JD(U) LP leader, a delegation of leaders including Kumar, Rashtriya Janata Dal  president Lalu Prasad, Congress and Communist Party of India, met Governor Kesari Nath Tripathi to call Kumar to form a new government.

Manjhi also met the governor and claimed that he had the majority and that he would prove it in a trial of strength in the Assembly at a time of governor’s choosing.

The PIL challenged the LP  meeting called by JD(U) National President Sharad Yadav on Saturday which elected Kumar the new JD(U)LP leader in place of Manjhi. His counsel SBK Mangalam told the court that Speaker Uday Narayan Chaudhry took the decision on recognising Kumar as JD(U)LP leader in the Assembly without receiving an advice from the governor. This amounted to usurping the power of the governor, the counsel said.