Om Prakash Chautala

Chautala served as the Chief Minister of Haryana across five distinct terms between 1989 and 2005, though he completed a full five-year term only during his final stint in office.^[1] He first assumed the office of Chief Minister on 2 December 1989 without being an elected member of the legislative assembly. After multiple by-election cancellations, he won a seat representing the Darba Kalan constituency, but was forced to resign on 22 May 1990 following controversy regarding the death of an independent candidate; he was succeeded by Banarsi Das Gupta. His second term lasted only five days, from 12 July 1990 until his resignation on 17 July 1990 due to intra-party pressure, after which he was succeeded by Hukam Singh. He assumed office for a third time on 22 March 1991, but resigned on 6 April 1991, leading to the imposition of President's rule in Haryana due to political instability.^[13]

After eight years out of power, Chautala returned to office for his fourth term on 24 July 1999 with the external support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after removing the incumbent government led by Bansi Lal. Following the 2000 Haryana Legislative Assembly elections, in which the INLD secured an absolute majority, he formed his fifth government on 2 March 2000. He completed this term and remained in office until 5 March 2005, when the INLD was defeated in the state assembly elections. At the national level, Chautala aligned his party with both the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and various non-aligned Third Front coalitions throughout his career.^[13]

In 2013, Chautala was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his involvement in a junior basic trained teacher recruitment scam.^[14] He was released early from Tihar Jail on 2 July 2021 under a Delhi government special remission initiative meant to decrease prison congestion during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[15] While serving his prison sentence, Chautala continued his formal education, successfully clearing his Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations by 2021 at the age of 87.^[16]

In June 2008, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged Chautala and 53 others in connection with the illegal appointment of 3,206 junior basic trained teachers in Haryana between 1999 and 2000. The probe was initiated following a Supreme Court order based on a writ petition filed by Sanjeev Kumar, a 1989-batch IAS officer and former director of primary education in the state.^[17][18]

In January 2013, a special CBI court in New Delhi found Chautala and his son, Ajay Singh Chautala, guilty of corruption, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for their roles in manipulating selection merit lists to recruit unqualified teachers. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld upon appeal by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. Chautala was released from Tihar Jail in July 2021 after completing his sentence under a special remission initiative granted by the Delhi government during the COVID-19 pandemic.^{[19][20][21][22]}

In April 2006, the CBI registered a separate case against Chautala following a complaint by Haryana Congress leader Shamsher Singh Surjewala. The investigation alleged that while serving as Chief Minister between 1993 and 2006, Chautala accumulated wealth and properties vastly exceeding his known, legitimate sources of income. The agency filed a formal chargesheet in March 2010, estimating the accumulated value of the unauthorized assets at approximately ₹6.09 crore.^[21][23]

On 27 May 2022, a special CBI court convicted Chautala under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹50 lakh. The court also ordered the state confiscation of four of his major assets. At 87 years old, the conviction made him the oldest inmate held at Tihar Jail. In August 2022, the Delhi High Court suspended his prison sentence during the pendency of his formal appeal against the conviction, taking into account his age, physical health limitations, and the time he had already spent in custody during the trial.^[24]