Jharkhand HC Rejects Ex-CM Hemant Soren's Plea Seeking Nod To Participate In State Assembly Budget Session

A bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad had reserved its verdict in the matter on February 26 after hearing Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal (appearing for Soren) and Addl. Solicitor General of India SV Raju [for the Enforcement Directorate (ED)] at length.

It may be noted that Soren was arrested on January 31st in connection with a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Soren moved to the High Court after he was denied permission to participate in the budget session by a special PMLA court in Ranchi on Wednesday (February 21).

Appearing for Soren, Senior Counsel Sibal primarily argued that he was not charge-sheeted in the case, he has been the CM of the State, and nothing stops the High Court from allowing him to go and participate in the Budget session of the State Assembly. The vote on the Budget session will take place in the state assembly on March 1.

In his brief submission, Sr Counsel Sibal referred to several judgments of the Apex Court wherein the 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.

On the other hand, opposing his plea, the Addl. Solicitor General of India SV Raju [for ED] argued that it doesn't matter if he is charge-sheeted, or is in Judicial custody or police remand in connection with the alleged scam and that it was sufficient for the Court to refuse him permission to participate in the budget session on the ground that it was admitted by Sr. Counsel Sibal that Soren doesn't have a fundamental right to participate in the budget session.

He also contended that generally, in such cases, a whip is issued for voting in the assembly (in this case, a money bill), and the members vote and since Soren's party has the strength in the house, the money bill will get passed and that no irreparable loss would be caused to him (Soren) if he isn't allowed 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 a person who is detained must forgo his right to participate in the business of the Legislature.

He also 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 Supreme Court's judgment in the case of K. Anandan Nambiar 1965 was followed.

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, he also argued that bail can't be granted to a person for the purpose of facilitating him to attend legislative assemblies/sessions. He added that even for temporary relief, for anticipatory bail, rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would come into the picture.

Lastly, he also submitted that Soren's past conduct does not make him eligible for a grant of this relief as he had earlier misused the liberty granted to him to participate in the no-confidence motion, wherein he criticised the judiciary and gave a speech in the assembly.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 35