Explained: Why Did SC Pull Up Hemant Soren and Asked Him to Withdraw His Plea

Jailed former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren on Wednesday failed to get any relief from the Supreme Court which pulled him up for "suppressing material facts" in his plea against his arrest in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday minced as it slammed former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren for concealing the relevant facts -- that a special court in Ranchi had taken cognisance of the complaint against him and also the filing of regular bail plea in trial court in a money laundering case -- forcing Soren to withdraw his petition challenging arrest by the Enforcement Directorate. Soren was arrested in January in a money laundering case.

A vacation bench, comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, seemed to be irked by concealing of relevant facts by Soren. Justice Datta told senior advocate Kapil Sibal to either withdraw the petition or it will be dismissed. Sensing that the bench remained unconvinced, even after he argued for two days, Sibal requested the judges to allow him to withdraw the petition.

What was the concealing of facts, which irked the two judges on the bench?

The special court had taken cognisance of the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), relying on prima facie incriminating materials against Soren, and his bail plea was rejected.

On Tuesday, the bench had asked Sibal to satisfy it on the proposition that the validity of arrest can be examined by the court, despite that the trial court taking cognisance of ED complaint and rejecting a regular bail application filed on behalf of Soren.

Today, the bench pointed out that a special court in Ranchi had taken cognisance of the complaint against Soren, but it was not mentioned in his plea being considered by the court, and also the filing of regular bail plea in trial court in a money laundering case.

Justice Datta referred to the fact that the cognisance was taken on the complaint on April 4, 2024, but was not mentioned in Soren’s plea before the court. The bench told Sibal that when parallel proceedings were pursued, the court expected a level of candour.

The bench told Sibal that in April his client came to the apex court and on April 29, notice was issued to the Enforcement Directorate. “You expressed dissatisfaction about the high court not passing a verdict. I asked what relief you were seeking... and you said bail”, Justice Datta told Sibal, to which replied that he should have said release his client.

Citing parallel proceedings, the bench said “(you) applied for bail before special court, then came before us praying for bail. On May 10, your other petition (regarding delay by the high court in pronouncing the judgment) was disposed of. We were told judgment was delivered….it was not brought to our notice then that cognisance (by the special court) had been taken”.

Sibal submitted that the fault was on the part of the counsel and not on the part of Soren, who was inside the jail. "Your conduct is not free from blemish. It is blameworthy. So, you may take your chance elsewhere," the bench said. Sibal clarified that their intention was never to mislead the court and reiterated that Soren was in jail. "He may be in custody... but he is not a layman," said Justice Datta.

In April, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed Soren's plea challenging his arrest and pointed out that there is "abundance of documents that lay foundation for the arrest and remand of petitioner". The high court passed the judgment after the apex court sought ED’s response to an interim bail plea filed before it, and after the high court finally delivered its judgment, a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Datta closed the petition saying that it has now become "infructuous".

After the high court judgment, Soren had sought interim bail to campaign for his party amid the ongoing general election. Sibal had then urged the court that the bail plea and a petition challenging the high court verdict be heard together.

Bench shot a volley of questions at Kapil Sibal

The apex court pointed out to Sibal that a bail plea was also filed before a special court in Ranchi, which was rejected. "We need certain clarifications first. You did not tell us you had (already) filed a bail petition.... your client should have told us. You can't keep material facts from us," said the bench. Sibal acknowledged the error as his personal responsibility and not his client.

The bench pointed out that on April 15, he filed a bail application. Sibal clarified that the bail application was without prejudice to his contentions in the petition. Justice Datta told Sibal that "more candour" was expected from Soren and the facts related to the rejection of bail and the taking of cognizance by the special court should have been disclosed. "Your conduct leaves a lot to be desired," said Justice Datta.

Sibal said that Soren's application for bail was mentioned in the instant petition. However, the bench said that it was not mentioned in the list of dates and the synopsis. "Why is it that none of the petitions mention cognisance (by the special court) has been taken?" Justice Datta told Sibal.

Observations at the end of the hearing

“Mr Sibal, we are still open but you have to clear this doubt from our mind….”, said Justice Dutta. Sibal pressed that it is a matter of personal liberty and urged the court to look at the facts and “your lordships will be astounded”.

“Does it mean that court will ignore the order dismissing the bail, just because you have filed it without prejudice….although you may have filed it without prejudice, the order is no less final and binding…we cannot ignore that order”, said Justice Datta.

The bench referred that the cognisance was taken on the complaint on April 4, and this was not mentioned in the petition before it. Sibal submitted that the fault was on the part of the counsel and not the client who was inside the jail.

“Why not in this petition. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the high court”, said Justice Dutta, adding that the petitioner has not approached with clean hands.

Sibal requested the court to allow him to withdraw the petition and pressed that the elections will be over (and his client cannot participate in the campaigning). “Nothing can be done…”, Justice Datta told Sibal, who insisted that the court could have heard him for 15 more minutes before deciding not to entertain the petition.

However, Justice Datta told Sibal, “that is why we granted you time till today. We have also done our homework…”. Sibal said Soren is in jail. Justice Datta said that it cannot be a ground and asked Sibal whether he is withdrawing the petition or it will be dismissed.