Hemant Soren hearing highlights | Former Jharkhand CM withdraws plea before Supreme Court challenging ED arrest

Sibal again points to how the Jharkhand had HC delayed the pronouncement of the judgment on the plea for quashing the arrest. 

Justice Datta says that this would appeal to the conscience of the judges if Mr. Soren had approached the SC with clean hands. 

Mr. Sibal says nobody in High Court hears them even though personal liberty is at stake. 

Countering this, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma says that he had been to four High Courts and that matters of personal liberty are held in the highest priority. 

“What are we doing now, burning midnight oil? People who make such comments should know they are also part of the governance of the nation”, Justice Datta says. 

“Is it a fact that when you filed this petition, you did not disclose the cognisance order?”, Justice Datta asks. 

Justice Datta says that Mr. Soren did not come to the SC with clean hands. “Dismiss or you want to withdraw?”, the judge asks. 

Mr. Sibal says he would withdraw. 

ASG Raju says the cognisance order was not mentioned in the list of dates in the present petition. Mr. Sibal urges him not to interfere. 

“ A line squeezed in here or there about the cognisance order was not enough”, Justice Datta says. “Why did you not disclose the cognisance order in the present petition”, the judge asks again. 

‘I cannot convince the Court if the court thinks we have hoodwinked it... then..”, Mr. Sibal says. 

Mr. Sibal emphasises that all that he wants is for the SC to declare the arrest illegal. He intervenes pointedly, and tells Justice Datta emphatically that the cognisance order of the trial Court was placed on record. 

The senior counsel points out that the cognisance order and the bail orders were placed on record as additional documents. 

“You should have approached the High Court seeking delivery of the verdict, pointing to developments in the case, including cognisance of the ED chargesheet”, Justice Datta points out.

Mr. Sibal reiterates that there are SC precedents to show that an order of cognisance by a Special Court will not come in the way of seeking an order of release from the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Sibal says an order for release under Section 19 PMLA (procedure for arrest) is not affected by an order of cognisance taken by the trial Court. 

Justice Datta says that Mr. Soren ‘better take his case elsewhere’. The judge points out that the former Jharkhand CM “should have added one line that he has applied for bail in Special Court.” 

Countering this, Mr. Sibal says that this would have rendered infructous the plea before the SC. He also asks why the Jharkhand High Court had reserved the judgment on his plea to quash his arrest for two months without delivering a verdict.

“I have been wrongly dealt with by the court”, Mr. Sibal says. 

Mr. Sibal says the fact that ED had filed a chargesheet on March 30 was mentioned to the Bench. That the trial Court would take cognisance was understood, he says. 

Refuting this, Justice Datta asserts that it cannot be taken for granted that the trial Court would take cognisance. The judge points out that the conduct of Mr. Soren when coming to SC is not “without blemish”. 

“We can simpliciter dismiss your petition, without commenting on that. But if you argue on points of law, we will have to deal with it”, Justice Datta says. 

In response, the senior counsel clarifies that Mr. Soren is seeking release and not bail. “The fault is mine, not the client’s. Our intention was never to mislead the court”, Mr. Sibal says. 

Justice Datta points out that the Bench was not told that Mr. Soren had already applied for bail from the trial Court when it approached the SC on April 18. 

“We expected some candour. Your client should have said I have already applied for bail. We were not told that”, the judge says. 

Mr. Sibal agrees that he should have apprised the Court that Mr. Soren was seeking release from judicial custody and not bail. 

Justice Datta asserts that Mr. Soren was already “pursuing parallel remedies” when it approached the SC for bail. 

Addressing Mr. Sibal, Justice Datta says that the Bench requires some clarifications on facts. 

“When did you for the first time come to know about the cognizance-taking order?”, the judge asks. 

Mr. Sibal responds by saying – “On April 4, it may be assumed.” 

[A Jharkhand trial Court had previously taken cognisance of charges against the former CM under the PMLA] 

The hearing has begun. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is appearing for Mr. Soren. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju is representing the ED. 

A vacation Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma will shortly hear Mr. Soren’s plea for interim bail and his challenge to the legality of his arrest by the central agency. The matter is listed as item number 48. 

The judges found that Mr. Soren was previously denied bail by the Special Court on May 3. Moreover, the trial court had already taken cognisance of the money laundering case, a clear indication that it had found him prima facie guilty based on the evidence at hand.

“A lot of water has flown under the bridge after the arrest [of Mr. Soren], which is challenged here. Thereafter, bail was rejected and cognisance was also taken… But you say the arrest is illegal and so the custody is illegal… You are challenging his custody. But then the Special Court had taken cognisance. So, the question we want to ask is if even after cognisance, can arrest be called invalid? This needs an intense debate,” Justice Datta addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Mr. Soren.

Read more here. 

Read The Hindu’s live coverage of the proceedings here. 

Hemant Soren hearing Highlights: Supreme Court adjourns former Jharkhand CM’s interim bail plea to May 22

Hemant Soren hearing Highlights: The Supreme Court adjourned former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam.

Any inconsistency in judicial decisions is bound to be seen as unequal application of rules. On the principle of parity, former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who leads the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, is arguably entitled to interim bail to enable him to campaign in his home State for the next phases of the general election, from May 20. 

Read The Hindu’s editorial here. 

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached land measuring 8.86 acre, allegedly owned by former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren in Ranchi, as part of a money laundering investigation against him and his associates, the federal agency said on April 04.

It had filed a charge sheet against the 48-year-old JMM leader and four others — Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Raj Kumar Pahan, Hilariyas Kachhap and Binod Singh — on March 30 before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court here.

Read more here. 

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Hemant Soren stepped down as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand moments before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested him on allegations of money laundering. Mr. Soren faces charges of benefiting from tribal land transactions based on forged documents.

Watch here.

Watch | Hemant Soren arrested by ED | All you need to know

In this episode of Talking politics, we will discuss the events that led to the Hemant Soren’s arrest and the elevation of JMM vice-president Champai Soren to the post of Chief Minister

Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren is attempting to subvert the probe into the money laundering case against him by “misusing state machinery”, the Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court on Monday, May 20, 2023, and opposed his “special prayer” for interim bail to campaign in the Lok Sabha election.

Read more here. 

Hemant Soren interim bail plea: ED opposes interim bail to former Jharkhand CM for campaigning

ED opposes former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren's bail plea for election campaign, citing misuse of state machinery.