NEW DELHI, November 4, 2026: The Supreme Court has directed the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly to decide within two months whether Congress MLA Nirmala Sapre should be disqualified under the anti-defection law, setting a firm deadline for a petition that has remained unresolved since 2024.
The order does not decide whether Sapre defected or whether she should lose her seat. That question remains with the Speaker, who must assess the evidence and the submissions made in the disqualification proceedings. The Supreme Court’s intervention is about the delay in reaching a decision and the need for petitions under the Tenth Schedule to be handled promptly.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Leader of Opposition Umang Singhar. He had approached the court after the state’s Speaker did not deliver a decision on the disqualification plea against Sapre, who was elected from Bina on a Congress ticket in the 2023 Assembly election.
Singhar’s petition alleges that Sapre voluntarily gave up her membership of the Congress and aligned herself with the Bharatiya Janata Party without resigning as an MLA. The allegation centres in part on her appearance at a programme attended by Chief Minister Mohan Yadav in May 2024, during the Lok Sabha election campaign. Congress leaders say she had moved towards the ruling party while continuing to hold a seat won on a Congress ticket.
Sapre has denied that she resigned from the Congress or formally joined the BJP. She has maintained that she remains a Congress member. The difference between public political activity and formal party membership is relevant to the legal test under the Tenth Schedule, which provides for disqualification in specified circumstances, including voluntarily giving up membership of a political party.
The disqualification petition was moved before the Speaker in mid-2024. The Speaker took up the matter, recorded submissions and reserved it for orders, but no final decision followed. Singhar then sought judicial intervention, arguing that the delay had left a politically consequential question unresolved for more than two years.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had declined to direct an expedited decision in June 2026. It noted that proceedings were underway and that the Assembly still had a substantial part of its term remaining. The High Court also observed that the material before it did not establish the kind of immediate urgency that would justify a separate direction to the Speaker.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the idea that the remaining life of the Assembly could justify continued delay. It said matters under the Tenth Schedule should be decided expeditiously even when a court does not identify an immediate emergency and even when the legislature has time left in its term. The bench initially proposed a three-month period, then reduced the deadline to two months after the petitioner’s counsel asked for a shorter timeline.
The Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution through the 52nd Amendment in 1985 to address defections by elected representatives. It sets out circumstances in which a member of Parliament or a state legislature may be disqualified for leaving the political party on whose ticket the member was elected or for voting or abstaining contrary to party directions without the required permission.
The Speaker is the authority designated to decide disqualification petitions under the Schedule. That arrangement places the Speaker in a quasi-judicial role when deciding whether a member has incurred disqualification. The process is expected to be fair and based on the evidence, but delay can create a separate problem: a legislator may continue to participate in the House while the question of party membership and eligibility remains unresolved.
The Supreme Court has previously stressed that Speakers cannot allow anti-defection petitions to remain pending indefinitely. In the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case involving the Manipur Assembly, the court said that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months, except in exceptional circumstances. In Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, the court also imposed a time-bound direction for the disposal of pending petitions against MLAs.
The order in the Sapre matter applies that principle to a new set of facts. The bench said that a petition cannot be left undecided simply because the Assembly has years remaining before its term ends. The legal issue does not become less important when an election is not imminent. A prolonged delay can affect party strength, the opposition’s ability to hold the government to account and public confidence in the anti-defection process.
The two-month deadline is shorter than the three-month period that has been treated as the ordinary outer limit in earlier cases. It reflects the time already spent in the proceedings and the fact that the matter had been reserved for orders without a final outcome. The Speaker must now bring the process to a decision within the period set by the court.
The ruling does not direct the Speaker to disqualify Sapre, nor does it accept Singhar’s allegations as proven. The Speaker must still evaluate the material and the legal arguments, including Sapre’s denial that she left the Congress or joined the BJP. The Supreme Court has addressed the timing of the decision, not its merits.
If the Speaker finds that the requirements of the Tenth Schedule have been met, the consequences could include disqualification from the Assembly, subject to the applicable legal process and any further challenge. If the Speaker rejects the petition, the decision may also be tested through judicial review. Neither outcome can be assumed before the Speaker issues an order.
The case is politically significant because it concerns a legislator elected on a Congress ticket in a state where the BJP holds power. But the broader legal point applies beyond Madhya Pradesh. Speakers in state assemblies and Parliament are expected to decide defection petitions within a reasonable period, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that inaction can undermine the purpose of the Tenth Schedule.
The decision also underscores the role of courts in ensuring that the Speaker performs the constitutional function assigned to the office. The Speaker remains the first authority to decide the facts and law in a disqualification petition. The Supreme Court’s direction does not replace that role; it sets a timetable within which the decision must be made.
For the Madhya Pradesh Assembly, the next two months will determine whether the case is concluded before the dispute enters another round of litigation. The Speaker will need to issue a reasoned decision that addresses the evidence, the allegations of voluntarily giving up party membership and the legal standard under the Tenth Schedule.
For political parties, the order is a reminder that a disqualification petition cannot be treated as an indefinite procedural matter. For legislators, it clarifies that the question of party affiliation can remain subject to adjudication even when a member continues to hold a seat. For voters, the deadline offers a route towards resolving a dispute that has been left open for more than two years.
The Supreme Court has not settled the political contest around Sapre’s status. It has, however, made clear that the legal process cannot be allowed to drift. The Speaker must now decide the petition within two months, and the merits of that decision will determine what happens next.