Supreme Court stays proceedings before Jharkhand High Court against CM Hemant Soren

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the proceedings before the Jharkhand High Court against State's Chief Minister Hemant Soren in pleas alleging money laundering, embezzlement of funds and irregularities in granting mining leases [State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma]..A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its order in the plea by State of Jharkhand and Soren against a Jharkhand High Court order that had upheld the maintainability of the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed against Soren by one Shiv Shankar Sharma. "Order reserved. Since this Court is seized of the matter, the High Court shall not proceed further with the writ petitions," the apex court directed..Pertinently, the Court deprecated the use of the PIL route to initiate an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe when there was no predicate offence registered. "There is something more fundamental about this. Entire agency's wherewithal is with you for probe. No one would have thought a PIL would be to way to address the lacuna of machinery. Not what parliament intended," the Court remarked.The Jharkhand High Court had directed the CBI to probe the matter after a Bench led by the High Court's Chief Justice relied on a sealed cover report from the Enforcement Directorate (ED).The High Court had initially rejected the State's objection to acceptance of the sealed cover report. The Chief Justice-led Bench had directed the State to produce details of the 16 FIRs relating to an alleged MGNREGA scam, and took note of the fact that a Mining Secretary was arrested and suspended in connection with the matters.The State had then approached the Supreme Court against the proceedings.The top court had on May 24, directed the High Court to decide upfront the maintainability of the PILs.The High Court on June 3 held that the proceedings are maintainable.The State then approached the apex court against the same by way of the present plea. The top court had, during the last hearing, asked the counsel for the PIL petitioner before the High Court, whether he had approached other authorities in connection with the matter before moving the High Court.Counsel for the CM and the State were asked to place the PILs connected representations on the record. .During today's hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), began by arguing that in criminal matters, petitions cannot be thrown out on technicalities and what was important was a cognisable offence having been made out prima facie. "Res judicata has to be between same parties. Here that and estoppel won't apply." However, Justice Bhat disagreed. "But same issue can't be brought up time again and again," he said."Yes, especially by the same lawyer. He is the common denominator," Justice Lalit weighed in. The Bench then asked the ASG as to how the High Court could have been satisfied of a prima facie offence given the material before and interfered in ongoing criminal proceedings."[The] High Court must have the confidence to order as it did. It cannot embark [the way it did] merely because allegations [were] made." The bench further asked whether the ED had started the probe only after the PIL was filed before the High Court.The ASG replied in the affirmative.He said that the ED was probing but could not have acted on its own without a predicate offence or without directions from the High Court. "ED's hands are tied by predicate offence rule," the ASG said.The Supreme Court was however, not impressed and asked how the ED could circumvent the law laid enacted by parliament and the PMLA judgment of the Supreme Court by using High Court."Can we get over the procedure in recent PMLA judgment ... We can't by subterfuge allow you something that parliament hadn't intended to," the Bench remarked.Even if the High Court can entertain PILs, it should be based on solid material and not mere suspicion, the Court said. "Our judicial discipline will go haywire. We can't register PILs on mere suspicions like this," the top court said."If the agencies are probing, why should the High Court go ahead?" Justice Bhat asked. The Bench stated that the arguments are very sketchy."Averments are very superficial. Should not the High Court be satisfied with a prima facie view?"The ASG submitted that the agency was presupposing that there was an accused for a cognisable offence. "That's a circular argument. Makes us uncomfortable," Justice Bhat said. "All the more reason for a writ court not to interfere. The High Court has to find it convincing for an offence to be registered,"Justice Lalit added.The Court said that while there is no bar on investigation, it cannot be done by using Constitutional courts when no prima facie material is placed before the Court. "We're not stopping from what your investigation has led to you. But please don't involve the court, court will only involve itself when there's prima facie material," the bench said.In this regard, the Court also took exception to submission of information before High Court in sealed cover."In PIL, we are bound to share information. In criminal case we may still allow sealed cover," the Court said.It then reserved its verdict in the matter..Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State of Jharkhand and the Chief Minister respectively. [Follow our coverage of the hearing]