Today(on 21st May), Supreme Court questions the legality of ex-Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s arrest in a money laundering case, post-denial of bail by lower courts. Soren’s challenge prompts a judicial examination into the matter.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 21st May), The Supreme Court, raised questions regarding the legality of the arrest of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. The judicial inquiry stems from Soren’s legal challenge against his detention related to a money laundering case, especially after his bail applications were denied by both a trial court and the High Court.
During the proceedings, the Vacation Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted the existing judicial determinations which found a prima facie case against Soren, thereby questioning the grounds for the Supreme Court to reassess the arrest’s legality.
“We have a judicial forum order indicating the commission of an offense. Our presence here is to determine if the arrest was justified based on the available evidence. You need to convince us that, despite the two bail rejections, we can still assess the legality of the arrest.”
-the Court noted during the session.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Hemant Soren’s Interim Bail Plea Opposed by ED in Supreme Court
In response, Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, asserted that the challenge was not about bail or the quashing of the case but specifically targeted the legality of the arrest.
“The judicial decision confirms the commission of a money laundering offense under PMLA. When I seek release on bail, two conditions must be met. I’m not requesting bail or quashing. I’m not asserting the cognizance is flawed. I’m arguing that the arrest itself was unjustified, as the available evidence does not warrant it.”
– Sibal articulated.
Further complicating the legal landscape, the Supreme Court scrutinized the actions of Soren’s legal approach, noting his simultaneous application for bail while a petition challenging his arrest was still under judicial review.
“Mr. Sibal, your writ petition was rejected by the High Court on May 3, and you had filed a bail application on April 15. Did you seek permission from the High Court—any formal approval—to pursue bail due to the delayed judgment in the petition challenging the arrest?”
-queried the apex court, to which Sibal confirmed no such formal leave was sought.
During the court proceedings, the discussion also addressed purported procedural errors by Soren, with Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju remarking–
“Engaging in dual strategies simultaneously, a practice admonished by this court on multiple occasions.”
The case against Soren involves accusations of orchestrating an extensive illegal land ownership transfer scheme in Jharkhand, spearheaded by influential mafias, which led to his arrest. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has also implicated an IAS officer and several others in this scheme, argues that Soren’s involvement was substantiated by oral testimonies alleging his illegal acquisition of significant tracts of land.
ALSO READ: ED in SC: “Hemant Soren Filed Fake SC/ST Act Cases Against our Officers to Halt PMLA Probe”
Despite these allegations, Soren has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Before his arrest, he denounced the charges as fabricated, suggesting a politically motivated conspiracy against him.
“The Enforcement Directorate merely records statements from individuals claiming the land belongs to Soren, leading to the conclusion that it belongs to Hemant Soren. There is no tangible evidence, only verbal assertions.”
-Soren’s counsel, Sibal, emphasized during the hearing, arguing that no direct evidence linked Soren to the alleged crimes.
The Supreme Court is set to continue hearing the case, with Soren’s legal team challenging the fundamental aspects of his arrest and seeking to address what they describe as significant constitutional and legal errors in the process.
“This court must determine whether I am barred from applying for bail under Section 19 of PMLA, and if arrested under this section, whether my right to bail is forfeited. I am highlighting a constitutional flaw as this pertains to my liberty and implicates Article 19. If an arrest under Section 19 is unjust, then the entire arrest is invalid. Can it be acceptable that a person’s freedom and the legality of their arrest cannot be examined simply because they seek bail without prejudice to their rights?”
-Sibal argued.
CASE TITLE:
Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.
