Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren Withdraws Petition Filed In Supreme Court Seeking To Attend State Assembly Budget Session

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Soren, submitted that the assembly session is over; however, he requested that the question of law be kept open.

Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan acceded to this request and accordingly ordered:

“Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the State assembly session has already been concluded from 23 February to 2^nd March, 2024, the prayer in the writ petition filed before the HC has become infructuous…except that the question of law may be kept open. The Special Leave pedition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. However, the question of law is kept open.”

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 February 21).

The Single Judge Bench of the High Court had provided a distinction between Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 105 and Article 194 of the Indian Constitution. While Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right and confers freedom to speech, Article 105 or Article 194 of the Constitution of India provides the freedom to speech and the immunities of the speech which to be made on the floor of parliament or legislative assembly, as the case may be.

“Since the 'right to speech' as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India has been held to be distinct over Article 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India, therefore, merely because one or the other Member of Parliament or Member of State Legislative Assembly is not being allowed to participate in the proceeding due to the valid detention after valid order of remand the same cannot be construed to be in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.,” Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad added.

Appearing for Soren, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal primarily argued before the High Court that he was not charge-sheeted in the case, he has been the CM of the State. Thus, nothing stops the High Court from allowing him to go and participate in the Budget session of the State Assembly.

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 Senior advocate Sibal that Soren doesn't have a fundamental right to participate in the budget session.

The High Court concluded that since legal proceedings are pending against Soren, it cannot be said that any legally vested right has accrued to him to participate in the proceeding of the floor.

The Court relied on K. Ananda Nambiar & Anr. vs. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Madras & Ors., 1966 AIR 657. Based on this, the Court stated that a person who is detained on the basis of a valid order of custody would also have to forgo his right to participate in the business of the legislature.

Case Title: HEMANT SOREN Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., SLP(Crl) No. 4004/2024