New Delhi (TIP)-The Supreme Court on Friday, February 2, refused to entertain a plea filed by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief Hemant Soren, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering allegations minutes after he resigned as chief minister of the state on January 31.
Asking Soren to rather approach the high court concerned, the top court also declined to set down a deadline for the Jharkhand high court to hear and decide his petition that seeks his arrest be declared unconstitutional.
“Why haven’t you gone to the high court? Why have you come here directly? If we permit in one case for somebody to come here directly, we will have to permit everyone. After all, a high court is also a constitutional court,” a bench, led by justice Sanjiv Khanna asked the lawyers representing Soren. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the JMM leader, pressed that the facts of the matter required the top court to step in.
“We are dealing with a chief minister who has been arrested in such a manner. Please, see the evidence. This is not fair,” submitted Sibal, adding it was an appropriate case for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion.
But the bench, which also comprised justices MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, replied that all courts are open to everybody and that the high court is equally competent to grant the relief Soren wanted.
“There is an earlier order of this court by a bench of which my sister (justice Trivedi) was a part, asking you to go to the high court. Move the high court… From your amendment application, it appears that he has been arrested… Move the high court because the issue is different now. You came here challenging the summons (by ED) but now you are challenging your arrest,” it said.
Responding, Sibal tried to distinguish between the two cases.
“In the other case, constitutionality of the PMLA provision was challenged. Here, it is not. Look at the order of arrest in this case. Such an order cannot be passed by any reasonable person,” he argued.
But the bench remained indisposed.
“The fact of the matter is that the high court is also a constitutional court. Please, go to the high court. We will have to follow it consistently. I have been following it consistently and my brother and sister have been following it consistently,” it emphasised.
At this point, Singhvi came in to persuade the bench that the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction in these cases and that there was no legal necessity for his client to move the high court at first instance if the apex court deemed it a suitable case to exercise its discretion.
“Further, this case has laid down the law that there is a difference between power to arrest and necessity to do so. There has to be some concrete reasons to make arrest,” added the senior counsel.
The bench, however, said that Soren must approach the high court first. “We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 (writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) and leave it open to the petitioner to move the high court under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of a high court. We have been informed that the petitioner has already preferred a writ petition before the Jharkhand high court where it is still pending,” the court recorded in its order.
The order further noted that an older petition by Soren was disposed off by the top court while granting him the same liberty of moving the high court.
“It will also be open to him to ask the high court for expeditious listing and disposal of the case,” recorded the bench. Source: HT