The Delhi High Court has postponed its ruling on the challenge presented by Shibu Soren against the Lokpal proceedings. This comes after a single-judge bench declined to intervene in response to a complaint filed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey regarding alleged Disproportionate Assets (DA). The court’s decision regarding Soren’s appeal remains pending.
New Delhi: On February 20th, the Delhi High Court postponed its decision regarding the appeal filed by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Shibu Soren, contesting the ruling of a Single Judge. The decision declined intervention in the Lokpal proceedings initiated against Soren following a complaint filed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in the Disproportionate Assets (DA) case.
The bench, comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Rajnish Bhatnagar, after hearing arguments from senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and counsel for complainant BJP MP Nishi Kant Dubey, reserved judgment. However, indications from the court suggest that relief might not be granted in this case.
“Most likely, we are not inclined,”
the bench said.
Kapil Sibal, representing Shibu Soren, argued against Lokpal’s jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry or issue notices beyond the statutory limitation of 7 years. He emphasized that the alleged offences and property acquisitions in question is barred by the prescribed period of limitation period.
Soren has filed an appeal through Advocate Vaibhav Tomar. It is submitted that the finding of the learned single judge before the High Court was premature and erroneous, as the appellant contended that it was a case of the lack of jurisdiction of the Lokpal to issue process in the complaint filed under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that Lokpal retains the authority to determine the complaint’s maintainability, including whether it falls within the limitation period. He outlined Lokpal’s options, which include permission for investigations, closing proceedings, or initiating departmental inquiries.
Nishi Kant Dubey’s counsel highlighted over 80 allegedly accumulated properties, suggesting not only disproportionate assets but also corruption.
The Delhi High Court, slated to deliver its judgment soon, previously declined to intervene in Lokpal’s proceedings on January 22, 2024. Shibu Soren has since filed an appeal through advocate Vaibhav Tomar, disputing the premature dismissal of their writ petition.
The appeal emphasizes Lokpal’s jurisdictional limits and statutory time constraints for investigations under Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. It argues that the offenses alleged in the complaint exceed the prescribed 7-year period, rendering Lokpal’s actions jurisdictionally flawed.
The High Court refrained from intervening in Lokpal’s decisions, emphasizing Lokpal’s independence and its mandate to scrutinize complaints impartially. The court rejected claims of political influence on Lokpal’s proceedings.
“The Office of Lokpal is completely independent, and an argument that the Lokpal would be influenced by political consideration cannot be countenanced. This allegation that the proceedings before the Lokpal are vitiated and can be politically motivated cannot be accepted,” Justice Prasad said. The high court had heid, “The Lokpal will examine the entire matter independently and shall take a decision as to whether an investigation has to be ordered or not, which order is always amenable for challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The CBI has submitted a preliminary inquiry, and the Lokpal has to take a decision as to whether to proceed further in the case or not.”
The High Court emphasized Lokpal’s responsibility to assess evidence independently and determine whether further investigation is warranted, particularly concerning the material provided by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The complaint against Shibu Soren alleges extensive property acquisitions and investments in companies associated with Amit Agarwal, raising suspicions of corruption and illegal land acquisitions from tribal communities.
“It is well settled that while conducting an inquiry, the material that can be unearthed is limited compared to the material that is unearthed when an investigation is conducted by a competent authority,”
Justice Prasad said.
Lokpal had earlier directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter, soliciting Soren’s comments on the properties in question. Soren denied ownership of these properties and requested additional time to respond.
A reply was given by the petitioner on July 10, 2021, informing him that he was not the owner of the said properties. The petitioner sought an additional 60 days to submit his comments.
