On Wednesday, May 22, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, which challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case involving an alleged land scam in Jharkhand.

After a vacation bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma indicated their reluctance to entertain the matter, the petitioner opted to withdraw the petition. During the hearing, the bench noted orally that the petitioner had failed to disclose information regarding the Special Court's cognizance of the complaint filed by the ED.

It is worth noting that during yesterday's hearing, the bench had requested Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, to convince them that the Court could examine the validity of the arrest despite the Trial Court having taken cognizance of the ED's complaint and rejecting Soren's regular bail application.

Initially, the bench inquired of Sibal when the petitioner became aware of the Special Court taking cognizance. Sibal responded that the cognizance order was issued on April 4, 2024, while Soren was in custody.

The bench observed that on April 15, Soren filed a bail application. Sibal clarified that the bail application was submitted without prejudice to his arguments in the writ petition.

Justice Datta observed, "You were pursuing parallel proceedings." Justice Datta said that "more candour" was expected from the petitioner in disclosing the facts related to the rejection of bail and the taking of cognizance. "Your conduct leaves a lot to be desired," the judge said.

"I take it as a fault of mine and not the client. The client is in jail. Our intention was never to mislead the court," Sibal replied. He explained that the petition was challenging the validity of arrest and was not a bail application and hence, both the remedies are distinct. "That is my conception. It could be wrong," he said.

"We can simpliciter dismiss your petition, without commenting on that. But if you argue on points of law, we will have to deal with it," Justice Datta cautioned.

Justice Datta remarked that once cognizance was taken, the detention transitioned from an executive to a judicial act. "It enters the judicial arena with cognizance taken... why was it not mentioned in any of the petitions, earlier petition and the present petition," the judge queried. It's worth noting that Soren had previously lodged a petition, challenging the High Court's delay in delivering judgment. This petition was rendered obsolete on May 10 when the High Court pronounced its judgment on May 3.

"Your lordships have held that an order taking cognizance will not stand in the way of release if the arrest is invalid. Writ petition challenging S.19 (arrest) does not entitle me to the quashing of the proceedings or acquittal. They can re-arrest. It does not impact the proceedings," Sibal said.

"It does. Once you are judicial custody, Court has to be very slow in releasing you," Justice Datta stated.

Sibal pointed out that shortly after Soren's arrest on January 31, he sought relief from the Supreme Court. On February 2, the Supreme Court referred the matter back to the High Court. However, Sibal noted that the High Court's hearing took place only after four weeks. Despite the judgment being reserved on February 29, it remained unpronounced until May 3.

In his efforts to persuade the bench, Sibal referenced judgments indicating that the order taking cognizance wouldn't hinder the release of an accused if the arrest was deemed invalid. During the hearing, Sibal clarified that the cognizance order had been submitted as an additional document in the previous Special Leave Petition. He also noted that Soren's bail application was mentioned in the current petition as well. However, Justice Datta pointed out that it was not listed in the List of Dates and the Synopsis.

Despite Sibal's earnest efforts at persuasion, the bench proceeded to draft an order, declaring that the petition had been dismissed and there was no justification for intervening in the High Court's contested judgment. Following the dictation of the order, Sibal requested permission to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed upon withdrawal.