Delhi HC stays conviction of ex-minister Dilip Ray, enables him to contest Odisha Assembly polls

Ray’s application was filed in his pending appeal challenging a trial court verdict of October 6, 2020, convicting Ray under IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) as well as provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On October 26, 2020, he was sentenced to three-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 lakh. On October 27, 2020, the HC had issued a notice to the CBI on Ray’s appeal and suspended his jail term during the pendency of his appeal.

A single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the conviction of the present applicant if not suspended would lead to an irreversible consequence, if he is acquitted at a later stage, this court is inclined to allow the present application. In view thereof, it is directed that the conviction of the present applicant, recorded in judgment dated 06.10.2020, shall stand stayed”.

The HC, however, clarified that its order “does not amount to an acquittal”, but is merely suspension of conviction in the “peculiar circumstances of the case”, including Ray’s long political career and his age.

The court in its order said, “He (Ray) is 71 years of age and wishes to contest elections to be held in the month of May, 2024, and serve his constituency and the country. It is not as if he has expressed his desire to do so only for the purpose of suspension of his conviction by contesting the election for the first time. He has a political career running into more than 35 years… multiple appeals and cross-appeals have been filed in this case which will take time to be heard.”

The court said if Ray’s prayer is not allowed, he will lose the “chance to contest election and an irreversible consequence and irreversible damage to his political career and desire to serve his constituency will be caused to him”. It noted that this was the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in its “majority opinion” in Afjal Ansari v State of Uttar Pradesh, which was followed by the apex court in K Ponmudi@Deivasigamani versus State of Tamil Nadu.

The court noted that in Afjal Ansari’s case he had prayed for suspension of his conviction on the ground that he would not be able to retain his membership of Parliament and contest future elections. “Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the issue of contesting the future elections in this case too,” Justice Sharma said.