Meghalaya Speaker recognises merger of eight UDP MLAs with BJP

Meghalaya Assembly Speaker Thomas A Sangma recognised the merger of eight United Democratic Party (UDP) legislators with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), taking the BJP’s Assembly strength to 10. The UDP’s strength fell to four, according to accounts of the decision. The Speaker’s order relied on Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

The Tribune described that provision as an exception to disqualification for mergers that meet prescribed conditions. Kashlem also reported that the merger was recognised under Paragraph 4. The sources establish the legal basis cited for the decision, but do not set out the Speaker’s full reasoning or the conditions applied in this case.

The legislators joined the BJP in New Delhi on September 23 and sent the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly a letter about the merger two days later, The Tribune reported. On October 13, Sangma said the matter remained under examination and that he was awaiting legal opinions before deciding.

The Tribune reported that the Speaker subsequently issued an order recognising the merger on Friday, which the Assembly Secretariat notified. Kashlem said an official notification was issued on October 16, 2026. Kashlem reported a related decision: Sangma dismissed a disqualification petition that the UDP had filed against the lawmakers.

The Tribune’s account describes the merger order and notification but does not mention the petition or its dismissal. Those reports supply different levels of detail rather than contradictory accounts of the merger itself. The political change affects the distribution of seats between the two parties inside the Meghalaya Assembly. The BJP now has 10 members and the UDP four.

The Tribune reported that both parties are constituents of the ruling Meghalaya Democratic Alliance, which the NPP leads. The sources do not describe any change to the alliance’s leadership or say that the merger changed the government’s composition.

The central question addressed by the reported order was whether the merger qualified under the constitutional provision cited by the Speaker. Sangma had said he was waiting for legal opinions before deciding; the subsequent recognition established his decision, while Kashlem’s account adds the dismissal of the UDP petition.

Neither account provides the petition’s arguments, the legal opinions, or a detailed explanation of the decision’s reasoning. The reports therefore document a shift in party strength and the Speaker’s formal action, alongside the cited constitutional route and a separate petition decision.

They do not describe any further Assembly action or give details of a challenge to the ruling. The BJP’s tally of 10 and the UDP’s tally of four are the immediate reported consequences of the recognition.