‘You can wait’: Supreme Court declines to pause HC hearing on Hemant Soren

Two PILs were filed against Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren and his family members by one Shiv Shankar Sharma on October 21, 2021 and February 16 this year.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to pass any interim direction on a Jharkhand government appeal against a high court order on the maintainability of two petitions seeking a probe by central agencies against chief minister Hemant Soren for alleged irregularities in grant of mining lease and transactions of some shell companies allegedly operated by his family members.

Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren is yet to file his response to the notice issued by the Election Commission on a representation that seeks his disqualification from the assembly (ANI)

“You can wait after the high court has decided the matter. Let the high court decide. You have the option to come at a later stage. We are not going to decide this in a piecemeal way,” a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli told senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi who appeared for the state government.

On June 3, the high court accepted the maintainability of two pleas by Shiv Shankar Sharma seeking inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the chief minister and his family members.

One of the petitions which was filed on February 16 pertains to the alleged issuance of a mining lease by Soren, who also holds the mining portfolio, to himself last year..

The second PIL, which was filed on October 10 last year, relates to allegations that Soren and his family have parked unaccounted money through their associates in shell companies.

On May 24, the Supreme Court restrained the Jharkhand high court from considering these two pleas for probe by central agencies without first deciding whether the cases should be entertained as PILs or not.

At Rohtagi’s request, the top court on Friday allowed the state to renew its request and list it before an appropriate bench in July, when it reopens after the vacation.

In its plea, the state government claimed the two petitions were filed with political motives to destablise the government, and that the high court agreed to hear the matter without examining the credentials of the petitioner as required under the high court rules.

The state government flagged that Sharma did not divulge that his father had testified against the chief minister’s father Shibu Soren in a murder case in 2006, in which the veteran Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader was eventually acquitted.

“...These are politically motivated cases only to destabilize the government,” Rohatgi said.

The bench responded: “The high court has decided to proceed with the hearing (on the PILs). The question is should it be done piecemeal or in one go.”

The state’s counsel pointed out that the high court was hearing the PILs on a day-to-day basis and could deliver its verdict before the top court reopens after vacation. “The damage will be done by the time the court reopens. I don’t know the urgency to hear the matter on a day-to-day basis.” he said.

The two-judge bench, however, refused to provide any interim relief.

Appearing for the ED, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said there was urgency for the high court to decide the matter.

On May 24, Mehta told the court that the matter is sensitive and the probe agency feared that evidence in the case may be destroyed.

Last month, the Election Commission of India issued a notice to Soren that he was liable to disqualification for allegedly having a mining lease issued in his name last year.

Following Soren’s written response to the notice, the poll panel had asked him to appear before it either personally or through his counsel on May 31. However, Soren asked for more time following which he was asked to appear on June 14.

In response to a fresh request from the chief minister, the ED on June 14 granted him “last extension” and asked him to appear before it on June 28.