Today, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition filed by former state Chief Minister Hemant Soren, requesting permission to participate in the budget session of the assembly that commenced on February 23.
Following a thorough hearing on February 26, a bench headed by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad opted to defer its verdict in the case. During the proceedings, Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, and Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju, advocating for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), presented their arguments extensively.
Soren was arrested on January 31st in relation to a money laundering case associated with an alleged land scam, as per the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Following his arrest, Soren sought permission to attend the budget session, which was denied by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi on February 21. Consequently, he moved to the High Court for relief.
Senior Counsel Sibal, representing Soren, emphasized that Soren has not been formally charged in the case. Furthermore, given his past role as the Chief Minister of the State, there should be no impediment to his participation in the Budget session of the State Assembly. Sibal underscored that there is no legal barrier preventing the High Court from granting permission for Soren to attend the session. It's pertinent to note that the vote on the Budget session is scheduled to occur in the state assembly on March 1.
Senior Counsel Sibal cited various judgments from the Supreme Court where jailed legislators were granted relief to participate in their respective legislative assemblies. He also submitted that it was Soren's constitutional right to participate in the budget session.
In contrast, Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), countered Sibal's plea by asserting that regardless of whether Soren has been charge-sheeted or is in judicial custody or police remand concerning the alleged scam, the court should deny him permission to participate in the budget session. Raju argued that Sibal's admission that Soren doesn't possess a fundamental right to participate in the budget session is sufficient grounds for the court to reject his plea.
Additionally, he contended that typically, in such situations, a whip is issued for voting in the assembly, particularly in the case of a money bill. Given that Soren's party holds a majority in the house, the money bill is likely to be passed through voting. Therefore, the contention was that Soren would not suffer irreparable harm if he is not permitted to participate in the budget session.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of K. Anandan Nambiar And Another vs Chief Secretary, Government Of Madras 1965, ASG Raju argued that according to this precedent, an individual who is detained must relinquish their right to participate in the proceedings of the Legislature. Therefore, he contended that Soren, being under detention, should not be entitled to participate in the budget session.
Furthermore, he referred to the Allahabad High Court division bench judgment in the case of Raghu Raj Pratap Singh Alias Raja Bhaiya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. [2003], wherein the court followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of K. Anandan Nambiar 1965. This ruling reinforced the principle that individuals under detention are typically barred from participating in legislative proceedings. Therefore, ASG Raju argued that Soren's detention should preclude his participation in the budget session.
Referring to paragraph 35 of the Raghu Raj Pratap Singh [2003] Judgment, ASG Raju argued that the HC has accepted the position of law that so long as the two Legislators are detained under valid detention order, they have no right or privilege to participate in the session of the House.
Importantly, ASG Raju also argued that bail cannot be granted to an individual solely for the purpose of enabling them to attend legislative assemblies or sessions. He emphasized that even for temporary relief, such as anticipatory bail, the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, would apply. This highlights the legal hurdles and limitations surrounding the granting of bail in cases related to money laundering allegations.
Lastly, ASG Raju submitted that Soren's past conduct does not warrant granting him relief in this matter. He cited an instance where Soren allegedly misused the liberty afforded to him to participate in a no-confidence motion. During this motion, Soren purportedly criticized the judiciary and delivered a speech in the assembly. ASG Raju argued that such behavior undermines Soren's credibility and trustworthiness to be granted relief in the current situation.
