The Supreme Court refused to entertain former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection to an alleged land scam case.
The apex court asked Hemant Soren to approach the Jharkhand High Court under Article 266 of the Constitution. It added that the former Chief Minister can seek expeditious listing of his petition before the High Court.
Advocate Kapil Sibal, accompanied by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Thursday mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who agreed to an urgent hearing. A special bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Bela M Trivedi was formed to hear the plea.
During the hearing, Justice Khanna asked Advocate Kapil Sibal why can’t the petition be filed in the High Court. To this, Advocate Sibal responded that the top court needs to send a message as they are dealing with a matter where a Chief Minister has been arrested. Subsequently, Justice Khanna said that High Courts are constitutional and if they allow one person to come to the apex court, they will have to allow everyone.
Justice Khanna also pointed out an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2023 refusing to entertain Soren’s plea against ED summons, asking him to approach the High Court.
Hemant Soren had earlier filed a petition in the Jharkhand High Court challenging the ED arrest. Later, a similar petition was filed in the Supreme Court, with Advocate Kapil Sibal yesterday undertaking to withdraw the petition filed in the High Court.
Former CM Soren has maintained that the criminal proceedings against him lack jurisdiction, contending that no predicate offence justifies the investigation and subsequent arrest. He termed the arrest both arbitrary and high-handed. He also stressed on the absence of any connection between him and the alleged proceeds of crime related to the predicate offence. IN the petition, he alleged a fundamental right violation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and challenged the vindictive and brazen actions of the authorities.
Notably, Hemant Soren’s defence revolves around the nature of the disputed land, suggesting that it might be bhuinhari land, ownership or possession of which cannot be lawfully transferred. The rightful owners, as per Soren’s claim, have staked their rights to the land and sought possession of those parts that have been encroached. In addition, the petition clarifies that no portion of the contested land is registered in Soren’s name or under his possession.
Meanwhile, the ED contended that the approximately 8.5 acres of property in question constitutes proceeds of crime, charging Soren with unauthorised possession and usage. The nodal agency alleged Soren’s direct involvement in the acquisition, possession, and utilisation of these proceeds, accusing him of colluding with others, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in concealing original records to portray the acquired property as untainted.