Absence of immediate urgency is no reason to leave a Tenth Schedule petition undecided, the Supreme Court has held in directing the Madhya Pradesh Speaker to decide the Disqualification Petition Against Nirmala Sapre within two months; the Court has expressed no view on whether she stands disqualified.
New Delhi: A disqualification petition pending since July 2024 against Bina MLA Nirmala Sapre under the anti-defection law must be decided by the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly within two months, the Supreme Court directed on Wednesday (November 4) [Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the direction on a petition filed by Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Assembly Umang Singhar, who approached the Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to fix a timeline for the Speaker.
What the Court held
The Bench took note of the allegation that Sapre had voluntarily relinquished her party membership, which would trigger disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, and observed that the petition had remained undecided for more than two years.
It disagreed with the High Court’s approach on urgency. Even where a court finds no immediate urgency, or where considerable time remains before the Assembly’s term ends, the Bench held, petitions under the Tenth Schedule must still be decided expeditiously.
Relying on its earlier ruling in Padi Kaushik Reddy, in which it had fixed a deadline for the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide disqualification petitions, the Bench directed the Madhya Pradesh Speaker to decide Singhar’s petition within two months.
The Supreme Court has not expressed any view on whether Sapre has incurred disqualification. That question remains for the Speaker to decide on the material before him.
The allegation and the High Court’s refusal
Sapre, a first-time MLA, won the Bina seat in Sagar district on a Congress ticket in the 2023 Assembly elections. The disqualification petition, filed by Singhar in July 2024, alleges that she voluntarily gave up her membership of the Indian National Congress and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party.
According to the petition, in May 2024, during the Lok Sabha election campaign, Sapre appeared on a BJP platform in the presence of Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and announced her decision to join the ruling party.
Sapre has denied the allegation. She has maintained that she neither resigned from the Congress nor formally joined the BJP, and she continues to claim membership of the Congress.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier dismissed Singhar’s plea seeking a time-bound decision. It held that there was no urgency, since proceedings were underway before the Speaker and Sapre had denied resigning from the Congress or joining the BJP.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Singhar, described the matter as a “classic case” under the Tenth Schedule. He submitted that Sapre had left the party and was campaigning with the opposite side, yet the Speaker had not commenced proceedings on the petition.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Does Not Take Up Abhishek Banerjee Plea On Disqualification Of 20 TMC MPs
Why the order matters
Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker acts as a tribunal on disqualification petitions, and a delayed decision can let a legislator continue in the House for much of a term while the core question stays open. The order makes clear that the absence of immediate urgency is not a reason to let such petitions lie undecided.
By following Padi Kaushik Reddy, the Court has again treated a fixed timeline as the practical remedy against Speaker inaction, while leaving the merits of the defection allegation entirely to the Speaker.
Case Title: Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Diary No. 60436 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha