Former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s hopes to be released from jail to campaign for the last two phases of polling in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections died abruptly as he withdrew from the Supreme Court rather than face an order that he had approached it with “unclean hands”.
The hearing began with Justice Datta passing on to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Soren, a sheet of paper containing the list of relevant dates in the Soren case. The gesture was meant to convey the impression that the Bench had scoured the petitions with a fine tooth comb. The hearing found Mr. Soren’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, largely on the defensive.
Also Read: Hemant Soren hearing highlights May 22, 2024
The Bench then started off quizzing Mr. Sibal about the “crafty drafting” of Mr. Soren’s petition, artfully concealing the fact that a Special Court had already taken cognisance of the money laundering charges against him on April 4.
Mr. Sibal protested, saying the information was mentioned in the petition. He said the cognisance order was part of additional documents submitted as part of an earlier litigation in the apex court.
Further, Justice Datta pointed out that Mr. Soren had approached the Supreme Court for interim bail without mentioning that his application for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was already pending in the Special Court. The Special Court had declined bail on May 3.
“His (Soren’s) conduct when he came to the Supreme Court is not without blemish… Why did you not disclose the cognisance order (of the Special Court) in the present petition?” Justice Datta asked Mr. Sibal.
The senior lawyer, visibly hurt, said he was trying his best to convince the court about his client’s bona fide. He asked the judges whether they thought there was an attempt at “hoodwinking” the court.
“Why did the Jharkhand High Court reserve judgment on my plea to quash my arrest for two months without delivering a verdict? The judge knew the ED (Enforcement Directorate) would file a chargesheet in 60 days… I came here because I was wrongly dealt with by a court,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
“We are not convinced… Tell us, is it a fact that when you filed this petition, you did not disclose the cognisance order?” Justice Datta said, steadfastly.
The Bench suggested Mr. Soren take his case elsewhere. Mr. Sibal asked the court where else he could possibly go. He said the petition was on the invalidity of his client’s arrest on January 31. The order of cognisance by a Special Court did not affect a constitutional court to order release. Personal liberty was at risk here, he argued..
However, the court cut in amidst Mr. Sibal’s submissions to dictate a short order that the case was being dismissed as the petitioner had come with “unclean hands”.
Mr. Sibal said such an order would prove very damaging, and asked the court’s permission to withdraw the case. The Bench allowed his request.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju had argued that the case of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader was different from that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was granted interim bail by the apex court in the liquor policy case on May 10 to canvass for votes for the Lok Sabha election.
Also Read | Supreme Court asks if arrest can be called invalid after cognisance of case
For one, the Special Court had prima facie found material suggesting Mr. Soren had committed the offence, and thus, taken cognisance. Mr. Soren had not challenged the cognisance order.
Secondly, Mr. Soren’s bail application under Section 45 of the PMLA had already been filed and rejected. Finally, the arrest of Mr. Soren was not done, as in Mr. Kejriwal’s case, days after the Model Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha election came into force.
“Interim bail in this case would open a Pandora’s box,” Mr. Raju had argued.
