Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed Umang Singhar, MLA from Indian National Congress (‘INC’) against the inaction of the Speaker (‘the Speaker’) of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (‘the Assembly’) in adjudicating the disqualification petition filed by him against Nirmla Sapre, MLA from Bharatiya Janta Party (‘BJP’), on the ground of defection, the Single Judge Bench of Pranay Verma, J., rejected the petition, holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it.
Background
Umang Singhar’s grievance was that Nirmla Sapre had contested the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly Elections, 2023, from Bina constituency as an approved candidate of the INC and was elected as a returned candidate from the said constituency. After being elected as an MLA, she voluntarily relinquished her membership in the INC and joined the BJP. He contended that this amounted to defection under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 10 of the Constitution, thus, she was liable to be declared as disqualified from continuing as an MLA in light of Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India.
Aggrieved, he filed a petition under Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhansabha Sadasya (Dal Parivartan Ke Adhar Par Nirharta) Niyam, 1986, before the Speaker seeking a declaration of Nirmla’s disqualification from the post of MLA. However, the disqualification petition was kept in abeyance, and no decision was taken.
Analysis
Regarding the Court’s jurisdiction on the matter, the Court stated that the Speaker’s place of sitting was Bhopal, and he was required to pass the order at Bhopal. Additionally, Nirmla had been elected from Bina, District Sagar, which was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench.
Thus, the Court held that the integral part of cause of action had undoubtedly arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench and merely because Umar was a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench, it could not be said that the same had any relevance with or had any bearing on the subject matter of the lis or was an integral part of the same.
“Umang Singhar has failed to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the territorial limits of this Bench.”
The Court further added that the doctrine of forum convenience would also be squarely applicable to the present case. Even if it was assumed for the sake of argument that a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench due to Umar’s residence, then also the same was not a determinative factor compelling the Bench to decide the matter on merits.
Thus, the Court opined that it was a fit case to refuse exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition, holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. However, the Court granted liberty to approach the competent Bench having territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.
[Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 6199, decided on 01-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Vibhor Khandelwal
For the respondent: Advocate General Prashant Singh, Deputy Advocate General Shreyraj Saxena, and Advocate Manish Nair