The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notices on a petition filed by Congress leader Umang Singhar seeking the disqualification of Nirmala Sapre, an MLA representing the Bina constituency, for alleged defection from the Indian National Congress (INC) to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The petition contends that Sapre, who was elected to the state legislative assembly as a Congress candidate during the 2023 elections, voluntarily gave up her membership in the party and joined the BJP, thereby attracting disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law.
Singhar’s plea asserted that after Sapre’s defection, a formal representation was submitted to the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, requesting her disqualification. However, despite the submission, the Speaker had not taken any decision on the matter. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking two forms of relief — first, a declaration that Sapre stands disqualified from her position as an MLA, and second, a direction to the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition within a period of seven days through a reasoned order. Additionally, as an interim measure, the petition sought to restrict Sapre from performing any legislative duties or functioning as an MLA until the issue of disqualification is adjudicated.
During the proceedings, the Advocate General, appearing for the State, contended that the matter falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. It was argued that judicial interference in disqualification proceedings is limited and can only be invoked once the Speaker has passed a final order. The counsel emphasized that the constitutional scheme grants the Speaker exclusive authority to decide on questions of defection, and premature judicial intervention could undermine this framework.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, took note of the submissions and issued notices to the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the State Government, and Nirmala Sapre. The court directed the respondents to file their replies and placed the matter for further consideration after the completion of pleadings.
The case brings into focus critical constitutional questions concerning the scope and implementation of India’s anti-defection laws, particularly the balance between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight. It also highlights recurring issues of delay in decisions on disqualification petitions by Speakers across various states, which often result in prolonged uncertainty regarding the membership status of legislators accused of defection. The High Court’s decision to issue notice signifies judicial recognition of the need to ensure timely adjudication in such politically sensitive matters, reaffirming the importance of procedural fairness and accountability within the constitutional framework governing defections.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.