Introduction
In a significant ruling with implications for electoral disqualification and criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on December 22, 2025, stayed the conviction of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP – Ajit Pawar faction) leader Manikrao Kokate in a 1995 cheating case. The stay was granted only to the extent that Kokate shall not suffer disqualification as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). However, the Court clarified that the relief does not entitle him to hold any office of profit.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while issuing notice on Kokate’s plea challenging a Bombay High Court order which had suspended his sentence but refused to stay his conviction.
Importantly, Justice Bagchi made a strong prima facie observation, stating that “false declaration does not make a document forgery”, and that there appeared to be a ”fundamental error in the conviction”.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the early 1990s and relates to the alleged misuse of a government housing scheme meant for economically weaker sections.
The Government Housing Scheme
Between *1989 and 1992, the Maharashtra government introduced a scheme under which *government flats were allotted to persons with an annual income of up to ₹30,000. The scheme was intended to benefit economically weaker sections of society.
Allegations Against Manikrao Kokate
The prosecution alleged that Manikrao Kokate and his brother Vijay Kokate submitted false affidavits claiming that their annual income was below ₹30,000 in order to obtain flats under the scheme. Based on these declarations, two flats were allegedly allotted to them.
According to the prosecution:
- Kokate was earning substantially more than ₹30,000 at the relevant time
- He had income from his legal profession
- He was involved in agricultural and sugarcane supply business
- His father owned approximately 25 acres of agricultural land
- Kokate supplied sugarcane to local factories and earned significant income
None of these income sources, the prosecution claimed, were disclosed while applying for the flats.
Conviction and Proceedings Before Lower Courts
Trial Court Conviction
In February 2025, a trial court convicted Manikrao Kokate for cheating and related offences in connection with the alleged false declarations.
Sessions Court Decision
Kokate challenged the conviction before the Sessions Court in Nashik, which on December 16, 2025, upheld the conviction and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
As a consequence of the sentence, Kokate resigned from his ministerial post, and the resignation was reportedly accepted by the Maharashtra State Government.
Bombay High Court Order
Kokate subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, seeking suspension of both sentence and conviction.
- The High Court suspended the sentence
- However, it refused to stay the conviction
The High Court observed that the possibility of disqualification as an MLA could not be treated as an “exceptional circumstance” warranting a stay of conviction.
High Court’s Strong Observations on Public Office
The Bombay High Court made significant remarks on the responsibilities of constitutional office holders, stating:
“The office he occupies is not merely titular but is a solemn obligation to uphold the rule of law and safeguard the collective interest of the citizens.”
The Court further held that allowing a convicted person to continue in constitutional office solely because their conviction is stayed would:
- Cause irreparable prejudice to public interest
- Erode public confidence in democratic institutions
- Compromise constitutional values
- Demoralise law-abiding public functionaries
Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to stay the conviction, Manikrao Kokate approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments by Kokate
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Kokate, argued that:
- Non-stay of conviction would lead to automatic disqualification as an MLA
- Such disqualification would cause irreparable and irreversible harm
- The case involved exceptional circumstances justifying stay of conviction
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court passed an interim order staying Kokate’s conviction, but only to the limited extent of preventing his disqualification as an MLA.
The Bench expressly clarified:
“That will not entitle the petitioner to hold an office of profit.”
Thus, while Kokate is protected from immediate legislative disqualification, he cannot reclaim any ministerial or profit-bearing position.
Key Observation: False Declaration vs Forgery
One of the most significant aspects of the Supreme Court hearing was Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s observation, which may have far-reaching consequences for similar criminal cases:
“False declaration does not make a document forgery… there is a fundamental error in the conviction.”
This remark indicates a prima facie distinction between making a false statement and committing forgery, which involves fabrication or alteration of documents with intent to deceive. The observation suggests that the lower courts may have misapplied criminal provisions, a point likely to be examined in detail during final adjudication.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
1. Stay of Conviction as an Exceptional Relief
The Supreme Court has consistently held that stay of conviction is an exception, not the rule, particularly when sought to avoid electoral disqualification. This order reinforces that principle while also showing that limited, tailored relief may be granted where prima facie errors are evident.
2. Electoral Disqualification Under the Representation of People Act
Convictions resulting in sentences of two years or more often attract disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The present order temporarily shields Kokate from such consequences pending final decision.
3. Distinction Between Cheating and Forgery
Justice Bagchi’s remark revives an important doctrinal distinction in criminal law and may influence how courts assess false affidavits and declarations in welfare scheme cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay Manikrao Kokate’s conviction solely to prevent MLA disqualification strikes a delicate balance between public accountability and individual rights. While the Court refrained from granting blanket protection, its prima facie observations on the nature of the offence raise serious questions about the correctness of the conviction.
As the matter proceeds, the case is likely to become a key precedent on stay of conviction, misuse of welfare schemes, and the legal threshold for forgery versus false declaration. The final outcome will be closely watched for its impact on criminal law, electoral jurisprudence, and standards of public office in India.
Also Read
Supreme Court’s Interpretive Paradox: Textualism vs Purposivism in Constitutional Adjudication
