Assembly’s remaining tenure no ground to delay anti-defection pleas, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that petitions under the anti-defection law must be decided expeditiously, ruling that high courts should not decline to issue directions to assembly speakers merely because the assembly has substantial tenure remaining.

* (PTI)Directing the Madhya Pradesh assembly speaker to decide a disqualification petition against Congress MLA Nirmala Sapre within two months, the court observed that even where a high court finds no urgency in a disqualification matter, issues arising under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution must be dealt with promptly in accordance with the court’s earlier judgments.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by leader of Opposition in the Madhya Pradesh assembly Umang Singhar, complaining that a petition seeking Sapre’s disqualification had been pending before the speaker since June 2024.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in June this year declined to direct the speaker to expedite the proceedings, citing the absence of extraordinary circumstances and the fact that the assembly still had two years left in its tenure.

“What we find from the record is that there are allegations against respondent no. 4 (MLA Nirmala Sapre) of voluntarily giving up membership of the party on whose ticket she was declared elected. On this premise, it is alleged that respondent no.

4 has incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution,” the bench said in its order. “Even in a case where the court finds that there is no urgency, issues like these should be dealt with expeditiously,” the Supreme Court held, adding that petitions under the Tenth Schedule were expected to be decided promptly in keeping with its judgments in Padi Kaushik Reddy Vs State of Telangana (2025) and Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2021).

In the Padi Kaushik Reddy judgment, the top court directed the Telangana speaker to decide disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs within three months, emphasising that speakers cannot allow anti-defection proceedings to languish and must conclude them within a reasonable, time-bound period.

In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2021), the court held that three months should ordinarily be the outer limit for deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, except in exceptional circumstances.

In the present matter, the bench initially proposed a three-month deadline for the MP assembly speaker to decide the pending petition. However, after senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Singhar, requested that the period be reduced to two months, the court modified its direction accordingly.

Tankha told the court that the matter had been kept for orders before the high court, following which notice was issued. The speaker had also taken up the disqualification proceedings and reserved the matter for orders, but no decision had followed.

“Two and a half years have gone. Another two years of the assembly’s term remain,” submitted Tankha, urging the court to ensure an early decision. Singhar’s petition alleged that Sapre, who was elected from the Bina constituency on a Congress ticket in the 2023 assembly elections, had voluntarily given up her party membership and aligned herself with the BJP without resigning as an MLA.

The allegations included her appearance on stage at a programme attended by chief minister Mohan Yadav in Rahatgarh on May 5, 2024, during the Lok Sabha election campaign. An application seeking action against Sapre under the anti-defection law was moved before the Speaker on June 30, 2024.

Sapre, however, maintained that she had resigned from the Congress but had not joined the BJP, describing the allegations against her as baseless. In its June order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had declined to intervene, noting that the Speaker had recorded the statements of the parties and that the proceedings had made substantial progress.

It also observed that no documents had been placed on record to establish that Sapre had been expelled from the Congress or admitted to the BJP. The high court had concluded that, in the absence of such material and any “demonstrated urgency”, it was not appropriate to issue a direction to the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition expeditiously.

Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry. He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy.

His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments.

He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact. Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses.

His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms.

A Chevening South Asia Journalism Programme Fellow, Utkarsh regularly writes analyses on the judiciary and constitutional issues, and his reporting is widely followed by lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics and readers seeking clarity on India's evolving legal landscape.Read More