SC asks Jharkhand HC to decide maintainability of PIL for probe against CM Hemant Soren

The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Jharkhand High Court to decide upfront on the maintainability of PILs seeking CBI and ED probe against Chief Minister Hemant Soren in connection with the grant of mining lease to himself and transfer of funds into shell companies.

A vacation bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi said that the issue of maintainability of the PILs should be dealt with by the High Court on the next date of listing.

The High Court may proceed in accordance with the law, based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainability of the proceedings, the bench added.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that material recovered from IAS officer Pooja Singhal, after her arrest, showed direct linkage with political higher-ups.

"It is a very serious matter and a money trail was found," he claimed.

He further submitted that agencies apprehended that the evidence could be destroyed, that is why the materials were furnished in sealed cover for the perusal of the High Court.

Singhal was the Secretary of the Department of Mines and Geology and the Managing Director of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (JSMDC). On May 11, the ED arrested her and she was suspended by the Jharkhand government on May 12.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jharkhand government, submitted that the PIL was filed by the person, who had suppressed the fact that he had filed similar cases against the Soren family. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the CM, claimed the petitioner is politically motivated.

The counsel also claimed the High Court did not consider its own rules before entertaining the PILs. "Can some extraneous materials be relied upon in an unconnected matter," they asked, even questioning the High Court's decision to post the matter for hearing even on Saturday.

The Jharkhand government approached the top court, claiming the division bench order of the High Court had declined to consider the state's objection to the acceptance of the documents in a sealed cover.

The counsel said there were PILs before the High Court, where one of the PILs sought direction from the ED to investigate 16 FIRs pertaining to alleged offences arising out of the disbursement of MGNREGA funds in 2010. The other sought a probe into the alleged transfer of money by the Soren family into certain companies. The third PIL sought sanctioning prosecution of the Chief Minister, for obtaining mining leases under his own name. They questioned the High Court's decision to tag the three PILs.