Chandigarh, Nov. 30 -- : The Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday questioned the delay in deciding representation on disqualification of MLA Sukhwinder Kumar Sukhi, who defected from Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in August 2024. The bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sanjiv Berry directed the Punjab government counsel to seek instructions from the state Vidhan Sabha and asked how much time would be taken to decide the representation filed by the petitioner lawyer, HC Arora. The court took note of Arora's submissions, where he had cited a Supreme Court judgment, as per which the matter regarding disqualification of members of legislative assembly has to be decided within three months. The state counsel had told the court that the speaker had fixed a hearing on Arora's representation on December 9 and the delay was due to the fact that Arora had submitted some more documents in July, which were to be put across to the MLA for his response. The HC bench observed that in the instant case, the petition for seeking disqualification of Sukhi was filed by Arora on September 4, 2024, and only one hearing had been held by the speaker on July 29, 2025, when Arora submitted certain documents for consideration. Even from the date of the only hearing that took place on July 29, 2025, a period of more than three months has lapsed, it added. It was at this stage that the state counsel sought a short adjournment to seek instructions from the speaker as to how much time is required for deciding the representation pending before the speaker, filed by Arora. The court was hearing an application in the PIL filed by Arora seeking disqualification of Sukhi as a member of the Punjab legislative assembly, on account of his alleged defection. Arora had filed a representation in September 2024 before the assembly speaker seeking disqualification of the MLA. As the same remained pending, Arora moved the high court in January alleging that the assembly speaker did not fix any date of hearing. The PIL was disposed of with the observations that the court hoped the process of hearing would conclude as expeditiously as possible. However, Arora filed an application in high court in July alleging that the matter was not being heard by the speaker. This application was also disposed of in August as state counsel told the court that proceedings on his representation pertaining to disqualification had been initiated by the speaker. As his representation remained undecided, Arora again moved the high court on November 17 seeking the court's intervention. Now, hearing on the PIL has been fixed for December 11....