SC upholds Lalu Yadav's sentence suspension in fodder scam case
What's the story
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court's order suspending Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's sentence in the Deoghar treasury fodder scam case. The court, however, asked the high court to decide his pending criminal appeal within six months. A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Jharkhand state against a July 12, 2019 order of the high court.
Legal proceedings
Jharkhand government challenges High Court's order
Appearing for the state, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the high court had suspended Yadav's sentence on an incorrect assumption that he had completed 50% of his term.
He contended that two previous applications for suspension were rejected and this third one was allowed on a factually incorrect basis.
According to him, the high court mistakenly considered the sentences from separate trials as concurrent when calculating the duration of incarceration served.
Defense response
Criminal appeal pending since 2018
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Yadav, opposed the state's plea.
He argued that invoking Section 427 at this stage was legally incorrect and the question of whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively would arise later.
The Supreme Court noted that the criminal appeal has been pending since 2018 and declined to interfere with the suspension of sentence, requesting an expedited decision from the Jharkhand High Court.
Conviction overview
Yadav convicted in Deoghar treasury fodder scam case
Yadav was convicted by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court and sentenced to three-and-a-half years' imprisonment under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act.
This was his third application before the High Court seeking suspension of sentence after earlier rejections in February 2018 and January 2019 for not completing half his term.
In this fresh application, he argued that he had completed over half his sentence.
Suspension granted
High court suspended sentence during appeal pending conditions
The CBI opposed Yadav's plea, arguing the SC had already declined to interfere with the earlier rejection.
However, the High Court held that the Supreme Court's dismissal was a non-speaking order and did not attract the doctrine of merger.
Relying on previous SC decisions, it ruled competent to consider a fresh application based on subsequent completion of over half his sentence.
The High Court noted Yadav had completed over half his three-and-a-half-year sentence and suspended it during appeal pending conditions.