Supreme Court Extends Stay On NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's Conviction In 1995 Cheating Case Till Bombay High Court Decides Revision

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of NCP MLA Manikrao Kokate's plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a 1995 cheating case, asking the Bombay High Court to decide his revision petition within six months. The Court continued the interim stay on his conviction until the revision is decided.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order.

The case concerns allegations that Kokate and his brother Vijay obtained two government flats under a scheme for weaker sections of society by falsely declaring that their annual income was below the eligibility ceiling of Rs 30,000.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Kokate, told the bench that the matter concerned the restriction imposed by the Supreme Court while granting him interim relief in December 2025. At the time, the Court had stayed the conviction to the extent that Kokate would not face disqualification as an MLA, but had clarified that the relief would not entitle him to hold an office of profit.

Today, Rohatgi disputed the prosecution's case regarding his income. On the allegation concerning his earnings from the legal profession, Rohatgi submitted that Kokate was earning around Rs 1,000 as a lawyer and questioned how much a lawyer starting out in 1988 could have been expected to earn. He also alleged that the proceedings were being pursued by Kokate's political rivals.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the prosecution's case was that Kokate and his family owned large tracts of land while he had portrayed himself as an economically weaker person.

Rohatgi submitted that there were around 20 people in the joint family. He sought an early decision on the revision, pointing out that otherwise Kokate's remaining as an MLA tenure would be lost.

The Court disposed of Kokate's plea and asked the Bombay High Court to decide his revision petition within six months. It continued the interim stay on his conviction until the High Court decides the revision.

“We dispose of this petition with a request before the first appellate court to decide the pending revision application expeditiously, preferably within 6 months. The interim direction issued by this court on 22nd December 2025 as reproduced above shall continue to operate during the pendency”, the Court ordered.

The case arises from a government housing scheme introduced between 1989 and 1992 for weaker sections of society. Only persons having an annual income of up to Rs 30,000 were eligible for flats under the scheme.

The prosecution alleged that Kokate and his brother Vijay submitted false affidavits claiming that their income was below Rs 30,000 and consequently obtained two flats.

According to the prosecution, Kokate was earning more than Rs 30,000 at the relevant time through his legal profession and agricultural activities. His father owned around 25 acres of agricultural land. Kokate allegedly supplied sugarcane grown on his father's land to local factories and earned substantial amounts from the business. The prosecution alleged that he did not disclose these facts while applying for the flats.

A trial court convicted Kokate in February 2025. A Sessions Court in Nashik subsequently upheld his conviction and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Following the sentence, Kokate resigned from his ministerial post.

The Bombay High Court subsequently suspended his sentence but refused to stay the conviction. Kokate had argued that the conviction could result in his disqualification or unseating as an MLA, causing him irreparable loss, and that this constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting a stay.

The High Court rejected the contention. It held that the possibility of disqualification was not an exceptional circumstance warranting a stay on conviction. It also observed that a person holding the constitutional post of Cabinet Minister was required to discharge his duties with fidelity to public purposes and was subject to a heightened standard of accountability. It said allowing convicted persons to continue holding constitutional office merely because their conviction had been suspended would prejudice public interest and erode public confidence in democratic institutions.

Kokate then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal to stay his conviction.

Case no. – Diary No. 74050-2025

Case Title: Manikrao Shivaji Kokate v. State of Maharashtra