2015 Cash For Vote Scam| Supreme Court upholds Telangana HC's decision to quash case against accused

The Supreme Court today has upheld the Telangana High court's decision quashing the case registered against one Jerusalem Mathai in relation with the 2015 cash for vote scam. Allegedly MLA Elvis Stephenson was offered a bribe to vote in favour of a TDP candidate. Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, then a member of the TDP, is also one of the accused in the case.

It was contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in conducting a mini trial in the quashing proceedings. The FIR was also read out to indicate that there is a cognizable offence made out, there were also recordings made, and the bribe amounts recovered, in which event, there should not have been an order of quashing at such a preliminary stage.

CJI BR Gavai led bench of the Supreme Court noted that there was nothing to connect Mathai to the crime, but for a casual allegation raised on a call having been received by the complainant without any indication even of the time when such call was received. 

It has further been held that for reason, only of brevity having not been employed, an order cannot be set aside which though lengthy, has cited justifiable reasons to quash the proceedings.  "Brevity at times is a virtue but often in legalese it is faulted as levity and in adjudicatory orders, projected as non-application of mind. However, we are not convinced that there was a mini trial conducted or that there was no justifiable reason to quash the complaint...", the bench also comprising Justice Vinod Chandran has said.

As per the complainant, Mathai had offered him Rs.2 crores and a ticket to leave the country or vote in the elections to the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) scheduled on 01.06.2015 in favour of a particular political party. Later, a higher offer of Rs.5 crores was made for the identical conduct of abstaining from the voting or to vote in a particular manner. It was also alleged that the person who made the second offer specified that the transactions would be carried out by another.

Supreme Court noted that there was no indication in the complaint as to when such offer was made and nothing stated as to the response made by the complainant. It was also not alleged that the two instances were in any way connected. 

"...no FIR was registered on the written complaint made by the complainant, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The FIR further indicates that the police were present at a particular location, wherein the persons referred to in the second paragraph of the complaint along with another, having come to the residence of the friend of the complainant. There were arrangements made for audio and video recordings. It is also stated that the materials recorded disclosed reasons to suspect the crime and cognizable offence by the accused on which reasoning the crime was registered under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offence of offering bribe on the eve of the MLC elections to the MLA for exercise of franchise in a particular manner...", the top court further noted.

Supreme Court found that Mathai was not present on the occasion when the transaction is alleged to have occurred. The allegation made in the complaint against him was found not in any way linked with the allegation of a higher offer having been made by another and his presence was not reported when the alleged transaction occurred. Accordingly, court found 'absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions'. 

Case Title: The State of Telangana vs. Jerusalem Mathai and Anr.  

Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran

Judgement Date: September 26, 2025