MP High Court Reserves Verdict In Congress MLA's Plea To Direct Speaker To Decide BJP MLA's Pending Disqualification Petition

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (June 18), reserved its order in a petition filed by Congress MLA Umang Singhar seeking disqualification of BJP MLA from Bina constituency, Nirmala Sapre, arguing that she stands disqualified on grounds of defection.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal reserved judgment after recording the arguments of both parties.

Per Umang's plea, Sapre, after being elected as MLA from Bina in the 2023 assembly elections, had voluntarily given up her membership from the Congress party. She had later joined the BJP, which, per his petition, amounted to defection under Schedule 10 of the Constitution.

The plea claims that Singhar filed a representation before the Speaker of the Assembly, but the same had not been decided.

The petition seeks that Sapre be disqualified; in the alternative, the plea seeks a direction to the Speaker to decide Singhar's pending disqualification petition within 7 days by passing a reasoned and speaking order. As an interim prayer, the plea seeks that Sapre be restricted from acting and participating as an MLA with immediate effect.

The division bench of then Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf had earlier issued notice to the State government, the Speaker (respondent no 2) of the Legislative Assembly and Nirmala Sapre (respondent no 4).

In today's hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that their prayer was limited only to seeking directions for the respondents to decide his representation within 90 days as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Keishan Meghachandra Singh and reiterated in Padi Kaushik Reddy. He claimed that the petition had been pending for 10 months before the High Court, and the disqualification petition had been pending for 2 years. 

AG Prashant Singh, appearing for the assembly and speaker, claimed that the petitioner was "unnecessarily politicising the issue". He submitted that the Speaker has already taken cognisance of the defection application, and proceedings are ongoing. He claimed that by filing this writ petition, the petitioner was trying to place the court in a supervisory position over the speaker while deciding his application, which cannot be allowed. He further submitted that an application was filed seeking dismissal of this petition. 

During the hearing, the bench questioned Singhar's locus, to which his counsel submitted that he is the Leader of Opposition in the State assembly. The counsel further referred to the disqualification petition filed before the assembly and clarified that any member of the legislative assembly has the right to file one. 

AG Prashant, referring to the case of Sampat Kumar, stated that for a High Court judge under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly acting in judicial capacity to decide a disqualification petition within a certain period, the decision must be made by a bench of five judges. He further referenced the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu. 

AG argued that the period of the assembly has just completed 2.5 years, and 2.5 years are left. The Speaker has taken cognisance and will record evidence on June 30, 2026. He added that the Speaker was "doing his job" and that the representation will be decided. 

Case Title: Umang Singhar v State [WP-36057-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocates Vibhor Khandelwal and Jayesh Gurnani

For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma