Tenth Schedule plea pending since July 2024: Supreme Court asks MP Speaker to decide in two months
A three-judge bench says disqualification petitions must be decided expeditiously even when the Assembly term has long to run, and sets a preferred window of two months.
A disqualification petition filed before the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 5 July 2024 had still not been decided when it reached the Supreme Court. On 4 November 2026, the Court asked the Speaker to decide it expeditiously, preferably within two months.
The order came from a bench of the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. It disposed of a special leave petition filed by Umang Singhar against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 18 June 2026.
The petition that did not move
The allegation, as the bench recorded it from the papers, is that respondent no. 4 voluntarily gave up membership of the political party on whose ticket she was declared elected. On that premise, it is alleged that she has incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
A petition seeking her disqualification was filed before the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly on 5 July 2024. The bench noted that it “has not been decided so far” (para 4).
Why the High Court turned him away
Mr. Singhar went to the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur through Writ Petition No. 36057 of 2025. The High Court dismissed it by the judgment of 18 June 2026.
Its reason, as the bench described it, was that there was no urgency in the matter. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court, where a delay-condonation application was filed with the petition.
The Supreme Court’s answer
The bench read the High Court’s reasoning against this Court’s earlier decision in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana and Others, 2025 INSC 912. Even where considerable time remains before the Assembly’s term expires, it said, Tenth Schedule petitions are expected to be decided quickly.
“expected to be decided expeditiously” (para 5)
The bench did not return to the facts of the 2024 petition or comment on whether the allegation has merit. It confined itself to the time the Speaker has taken.
No notice, no order against anyone
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mareesh Pravir Sahay as Advocate-on-Record. The bench heard the senior counsel and issued no notice to the respondents.
Its stated reason was that no order prejudicial to their interests was proposed to be passed (para 3). No counsel appeared for the respondents.
Order
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and disposed of the special leave petition. It made a request to the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly to decide the pending disqualification petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.
Pending applications, if any, were closed. The order is dated 4 November 2026 and was heard in Court No. 1.