E-Paper
Jharkhand approaches top court to stall PIL against CM Soren in HC
The PIL before the Jharkhand high court filed by one Shiv Shankar Sharma had alleged that Soren who holds the mining portfolio of the state government had issued a mining lease in his own favour
The Jharkhand government approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday for urgent listing of its appeal challenging the decision of the Jharkhand high court to proceed with a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking probe by central agencies into allegations of irregularities in grant of mining leases by chief minister Hemant Soren and money laundering by shell companies operated by his family members.
Appearing before a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath, the state’s additional advocate general Arunabh Chaudhary told the Court that the high court had passed an order on June 3 admitting the PIL and has proceeded to hear the matter on merits. The order of the HC came pursuant to a direction by the top court on May 24 which directed that the objections of the state government on the maintainability of the PILs should be first heard before examining the merits.
The bench directed the state government counsel to approach the Registrar for listing the matter as there are two vacation benches and the discretion lies with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to list the matter before the appropriate bench. “The CJI has to take a call. You go to the Registrar and give all details. They will take orders from the CJI,” the bench said.
The PIL before the Jharkhand high court filed by one Shiv Shankar Sharma had alleged that Soren who holds the mining portfolio of the state government had issued a mining lease in his favour. Last month, the Election Commission gave notice to Soren seeking his response on this charge which was a fit ground to disqualify him as a legislator. The PIL claimed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should probe these allegations and sought a direction in this regard from the high court.
The state had objected to the PIL claiming that no ED probe could be ordered without there being any first information report (FIR) containing the allegations levelled by the petitioner. Further, the state submitted that there is a procedure prescribed for PILs to be entertained under the Jharkhand High Court Rules. In the present case, the state alleged that the PIL did not conform to this procedure.
In the previous proceeding that culminated in the May 24 order, the top court said, “Since the high court has clearly stated on May 13 that it would deal with the issue of maintainability of the petition upfront, it would be appropriate if the high court first decides the said issue. We accordingly direct that the issue as to the maintainability should be first dealt with by the high court on the next date of listing. Based on the outcome of the maintainability of the proceedings, the high court may proceed in accordance with the law.”
Both state government and Soren had appeared before the top court and accused the PIL petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma of suppressing vital information in its petition. They alleged that Sharma failed to disclose that his father testified against the chief minister’s father Shibu Soren in a murder case in 2006. The case, however, ended in the acquittal of the veteran Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader.
The state had also objected to the HC entertaining sealed cover reports submitted by the ED in the PIL proceeding. The HC accepted the report and even observed during the proceedings that the matter before it was of “paramount importance, urgency and of public cause”.
However, ED has maintained that the charges are serious and it apprehended that if the report submitted by it was to be disclosed, all evidence would be lost. The top court had even heard ED before passing its May 24 order. ED represented through solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta told the Court that the case had multiple dimensions that also involved embezzlement of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) fund involving a former divisional commissioner Pooja Singhal who was also the mining secretary in the state. While probing money laundering charges against Singhal, the ED raids discovered sensitive material regarding shell companies and money trails.
The PIL before the HC mentioned a list of 28 shell companies and ED believed that the materials recovered from Singhal could be linked to some of them.
