14 January 2003
2003: Supreme Court posthumously upholds his conviction
By two votes to one, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and five-year sentence.
- Attribution
- Accused
Sources · 1
- [1]
Last verified: 14 September 2026
Photo: Sharminshiroor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons
Born in India · Nationality Indian — Business / finance / financial markets / fraud
Harshad Mehta
Documented profile covering 7 controversies, including “2003: Supreme Court posthumously upholds his conviction” and “1998–2001: manipulation of BPL, Videocon and Sterlite through Damayanti group”.
Profile No. 2687 · Updated on 12 October 2026
7Documented controversies+ 2 background events
7Sources
1 followed by a conviction
§ Legal statuses reflect the documented sources as of the date shown; they replace neither court decisions nor the presumption of innocence. Counts are not a rating. Methodology
I. Documented controversies
Case · 3 documented stages
2003: Supreme Court posthumously upholds his conviction
Conviction
Conviction
27-28 September 1999
1999: sentenced to five years in Maruti Udyog case
A special court convicted him of fraud involving four cheques totalling approximately 380.97 million rupees.
- State of the evidence
- Established by a court
- Attribution
- Accused
Sources · 1
- [1]
Last verified: 14 September 2026
4 June 1992
1992: CBI arrest at centre of securities scam
Mehta was arrested as authorities investigated massive irregularities in securities transactions and banking arrangements.
- State of the evidence
- Court record
- Attribution
- Accused
Sources · 2
- [1]Bombay High Court / Indian KanoonHarshad S. Mehta vs Union Of IndiaCourt decisionVery high reliability
- [2]Supreme Court / Indian KanoonHarshad S. Mehta & Ors vs State of MaharashtraCourt decisionVery high reliability
Last verified: 14 September 2026
1998-2001
1998–2001: manipulation of BPL, Videocon and Sterlite through Damayanti group
SEBI found that brokers acting for the Damayanti group, described as a front for Mehta, had created an artificial market in several securities.
- State of the evidence
- Documented
Sources · 1
- [1]SEBIAction against Harshad Mehta, Videocon, BPL and SterliteRegulatory authorityVery high reliability
Last verified: 14 September 2026
19 April 2001
2001: new SEBI action concerning 1998 manipulations
SEBI announced measures following its investigations into BPL, Videocon and Sterlite.
- State of the evidence
- Documented
- Attribution
- Directly implicated
Sources · 1
- [1]SEBIAction against Harshad Mehta, Videocon, BPL and SterliteRegulatory authorityVery high reliability
Last verified: 14 September 2026
June 1993
1993: unproven public allegation of 1 crore payment to Prime Minister Narasimha Rao
Mehta claimed to have given Rao 10 million rupees to obtain political support.
- Attribution
- Directly implicated
Sources · 1
- [1]
Last verified: 14 September 2026
July-October 1992
1992: separate Delhi CBI proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act
The Delhi CBI opened a separate case and secured his appearance before a special judge.
- State of the evidence
- Documented
- Attribution
- Accused
Sources · 1
- [1]
Last verified: 14 September 2026
II. Documented background
Documented biographical or institutional milestones (elections, appointments, foundings, acquisitions…). These are not controversies and are not counted as such.
- 31 December 2001
2001: death while several proceedings remained pending
Mehta died aged 47 while several legal disputes remained ongoing.
Sources · 2
- Times of India / PTI — SC upholds Harshad Mehta conviction
- Supreme Court / Indian Kanoon — Harshad S. Mehta & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
- 1992
1992: diversion of bank funds through securities transactions and creation of Special Court
The Supreme Court described malpractices that diverted funds from banks and institutions to brokers, leading to the establishment of a special court.
Sources · 1
- Supreme Court / Indian Kanoon — Harshad S. Mehta & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
III. Constellation of documented links
No documented link with another published profile for now.
Two profiles are linked when a documented controversy of one names the other. The link points to that controversy and its sources; it does not indicate a personal relationship.
IV. Has something changed?
A new court decision, a missing source, a mistake? Tell us what should be updated: every request is read by the editorial team.
Support the archive
Controversia checks and updates its profiles independently. Support is optional and has no effect on the content of profiles.
Donate