New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's petition to challenge his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on money laundering charges. The Supreme Court directed the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) to file his plea with the High Court instead.
Hemant Soren was detained on Wednesday night following a seven-hour ED questioning in the case. He resigned as Jharkhand chief minister, and Champai Soren, a party loyalist and state transport minister, was named his replacement.
“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and leave it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, M M Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi said, Indian Express reported.
The bench added, “We are informed that the petitioner has already preferred a petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Jharkhand which petition is still pending”.
The court also pointed to its order of September 18, 2023, on a petition submitted by Soren, in which it told him to approach the high court, and added “Our attention is also drawn to record of proceedings dated September 18, 2023 passed in repetition, criminal number 378 of 2023, which was filed by the petitioner and Article 32 of the Constitution of India but was withdrawn with liberty to approach the high court for the same set of reliefs”.
The plea before the high court was filed prior to the arrest, and it contested the ED summons. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Hemant Soren's request to amend his suit challenging the arrest.
Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, who represented Soren, urged the bench to direct the high court to hear the case as soon as possible. Following the request, the Supreme Court stated in its order that “it will be also open to the petitioner to ask for expeditious, listing and disposal of the writ petition”.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared for Soren, requested the court to set a time limit for hearing the petition.
The court, however, said, “Everybody knows that when you pray for it, they will hear you out”. Sibal requested the court to say so in the order. The court declined and said it cannot control high courts like that.
“No I am not controlling the high court. We never control the high courts like that,” said Justice Khanna. Sibal said, “I have seen Your Lordships pass orders that it should be disposed of within one week… 10 days …”.
“We always say expeditiously, that’s all,” said Justice Khanna.
The court began by asking the petitioner why he should not move to the High Court.
Sibal said, “We are dealing with a chief minister who has been arrested. See the evidence. This is not fair.”
Justice Khanna said, “Courts are open to everybody. Second, high courts are constitutional courts. If we permit one person, then we have to permit everyone”.
Sibal said the court can exercise discretion. “This is a case where that discretion ought to be exercised.” Singhvi added, “Your Lordships’ discretion will be applicable depending on the context….”.
But the bench did not agree and said, “Please go to the high court. We will not entertain it. We follow consistency. I have been doing it as much as I know, my brother and sister have also been following that”.