Read Time: 07 minutes
Notably, in 2017, Madhu Koda, former Jharkhand Chief Minister, was convicted of corruption and conspiracy in the allocation of a Jharkhand-based coal block and sentenced to three years of imprisonment.
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda’s plea seeking suspension of conviction in the Coal scam case.
The court was hearing Koda's plea seeking suspension of conviction for offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
It is Koda's case that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe 'Ho' community from the Kolhan region of Jharkhand and that a stay on his conviction would allow him to contest the upcoming elections in Jharkhand, scheduled for November-December 2024.
The Bench presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while dismissing the plea of the petitioner (Madhu Koda) quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, said that “the right to represent,” as opposed to the “right to representation,” is not an unlimited right but is dependent upon “a certain social attitude of a candidate as a condition precedent to the recognition to the right to represent..”
"These pleas of the Applicant must not be construed without a backdrop. The backdrop is again at two distinct levels – Right to represent in a constitutional democracy, and a greater democratic ideal of decriminalisation of Politics," Justice Neena Bansal said.
Highlighting that the position of law has been consistent with respect to decriminalisation of politics, the court rejected Koda's contention that there has been a change in circumstances and in law and reiterated that said principle continues to hold the ground to date.
Subsequently, the court noted that Koda relied on the majority view of the Supreme Court in Afjal Ansari (Supra) wherein the conviction of the public servant was stayed as he was an elected representative and his disqualification created a vacuum situation.
However, the court pointed out that the facts of the above case can be distinguished from the present one and said, "Madhu Koda was not an elected representative, who incurred disqualification during the tenure of holding Public Office. The consequence a sitting member may have irreversible consequences on a Constituency by being left unrepresented, and in such rare occurrences the Court would be right in exercising its power to stay the conviction in view of larger social ramifications for the people of the constituency"
The court also recalled that Koda had previously filed an application for suspension of conviction which was dismissed in 2020. In that decision, the court observed “If the wider opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices, it would not be apposite for this Court to stay the appellant's conviction to overcome the disqualification incurred by him.”
While dismissing Koda's previous application, the court relied on Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. the State of Punjab, (2007) 2 SCC 574, noting that the power to stay conviction can be exercised in exceptional circumstances and is limited to cases where this court is convinced that not staying conviction would lead to “injustice and irreversible consequences.”
Accordingly, the court disposed of the present application saying, "There are no new grounds shown to consider the present Application under S. 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 afresh and is held to be not maintainable"
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Kumar; Advocates Luv Kumar. Priyanka Parmar and Neeraj Kumar
Respondent: Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema; Advocates Tarannum Cheema, Akshay N, Sadeev Kang and Akash Singh
Case Title: Madhu Koda vs. State Thru CBI (CRL.M.(BAIL) 725/2024 IN CRL.A.
Please Login or Register
