Delhi High Court Dismisses JMM Chief Shibu Soren's Appeal Against Single Judge Order Refusing To Interfere With Lokpal Proceedings

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren against a single judge's order refusing to interfere with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against him in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar found no reason to interfere with the single judge's order which held that the writ petition filed by Soren was premature.

“The appeal being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed with all accompanying applications,” the court said.

Soren had approached the single judge challenging the proceedings initiated by the Lokpal pursuant to a complaint dated August 5, 2020, filed by BJP's Nishikant Dubey, alleging that Soren had amassed huge wealth by corrupt means. The proceedings before Lokpal were stayed by the High Court in September 2022.

Upholding the single judge's order, the bench held that the complaint pertains not only to the purchase of properties that Soren claims were purchased more than 7 years ago but also pertains to “ongoing incidents of amassing wealth by misuse of power” by him.

“In the light of these allegations, we are unable to accept the appellant's plea that it was a fit case where the respondent no. 1 ought to have at the very first instance rejected the complaint as being barred by limitation,” the court said.

The bench observed that the Lokpal of India is yet to decide whether or not a prima facie case exists for directing an investigation against Soren by any agency including the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

“In this factual matrix, we find no infirmity with the approach adopted by the respondent no.1 [Lokpal of India],” the court said.

Furthermore, the bench ruled that the stage at which the question as to whether the complaint is barred under Section 53 of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is required to be decided depending on the facts of each case.

“In our considered opinion, the same need not necessarily be decided at the time of ordering a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1)(a), but may be decided after the inquiry report is received,” the court said.

Last month, the single judge had said that the Lokpal is yet to apply its mind to the material provided by the CBI as to whether an investigation into the matter is necessary or not.

Background

Claiming that the complaint was false, frivolous, and vexatious, Soren in his plea had submitted that according to Section 53 of the Act, there is a statutory bar against the Lokpal of India assuming jurisdiction to inquire or investigate any Complaint made after the expiry of seven years from the offense alleged.

On the other hand, the Lokpal of India had opposed the plea stating that it was “completely misconceived" and that none of Soren's fundamental rights had been violated in the matter.

Lokpal had said that a preliminary inquiry was the proper course of action in the matter including ascertaining whether Soren and his family hold the properties as mentioned in the complaint.

Soren was granted an opportunity of hearing before a decision was made as to whether there existed a prima facie case against him, according to Lokpal. The response further added that the matter was "still open to adjudication" including on the issue of limitation and that no final view had been formed.

Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184

Click Here To Read Order