Sri Vijaya Puram/New Delhi, July 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition filed by former Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to suspend his conviction in the 1998 Rural Development Bank fraud case. However, the apex court declined to grant an interim stay on the conviction, meaning Bharti’s disqualification from the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly will continue for now.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought responses from the prosecution and the Zila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank, through its General Manager, and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.
Since the conviction remains in force, Bharti’s disqualification as an MLA will continue pending further proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Bharti has challenged the July 10 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which refused to suspend his conviction handed down by a Special MP/MLA court in New Delhi.
In its ruling, the Delhi High Court held that suspension of conviction is an extraordinary relief that can only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court found no apparent infirmity in the trial court’s findings.
Rejecting Bharti’s argument that the impending Datia Assembly by-election would cause irreversible harm warranting suspension of his conviction, Justice Manoj Jain observed that such consequences arise from the statutory framework governing the disqualification of elected representatives and are not unique to the petitioner.
The High Court further held that merely being an MLA or MP whose electoral prospects are affected cannot justify suspension of a conviction. It said there was no serious infirmity or fundamental flaw in the trial court’s judgment that would warrant such relief.
On a preliminary assessment, the High Court also found no “palpable or manifest error” in the trial court’s decision.
According to the court’s observations, records indicated that the tenure of a fixed deposit was allegedly altered in stages – from three years to 10 years and later to 15 years allowing a family trust linked to Bharti to continue receiving interest at 13.5 per cent long after the original maturity period.
The Special MP/MLA court had convicted Bharti and co-accused Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery-related offences) and 409 (criminal breach of trust), in connection with alleged financial irregularities involving a fixed deposit at the District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Datia, in 1998.
The prosecution alleged that Bharti and others conspired to manipulate the fixed deposit and continued drawing higher interest even after its maturity.
Bharti was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh. Although his sentence was suspended and he was granted bail, his conviction remained in force, leading to his immediate disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s landmark 2013 Lily Thomas judgment.
Following the conviction, Bharti’s membership of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly was terminated, the Datia Assembly seat was declared vacant by the Assembly Secretariat, and the Election Commission of India notified a by-election.
