SC declines to entertain Jharkhand ex-CM Hemant Soren’s plea challenging arrest, asks him to move HC

“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and leave it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, M M Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi said.

The bench added, “We are informed that the petitioner has already preferred a petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Jharkhand which petition is still pending”.

The court also referred to its order of September 18, 2023 on a petition filed by Soren in which it had asked him to approach the high court and said “our attention is also drawn to record of proceedings dated September 18, 2023 passed in repetition, criminal number 378 of 2023, which was filed by the petitioner and Article 32 of the Constitution of India but was withdrawn with liberty to approach the high court for the same set of reliefs”.

The petition before the high court was filed before the arrest, and challenged the summons issued by the ED. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed Hemant Soren to amend his petition to challenge the arrest.

Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Soren, requested the bench to direct the high court to hear it expeditiously. Following the request, the apex court said in its order that “it will be also open to the petitioner to ask for expeditious, listing and disposal of the writ petition”.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared for Soren, urged the court to fix a time limit for disposal of the petition. “Give us some time frame my Lord,” he requested.

The court, however, said, “Everybody knows that when you pray for it, they will hear you out”. Sibal requested the court to say so in the order. The court declined and said it cannot control high courts like that.

“No I am not controlling the high court. We never control the high courts like that,” said Justice Khanna. Sibal said, “I have seen Your Lordships pass orders that it should be disposed of within one week… 10 days …”.

“We always say expeditiously, that’s all,” said Justice Khanna.

At the very outset, the court asked the petitioner why he should not go to the high court. Sibal said, “We are dealing with a chief minister who has been arrested. See the evidence. This is not fair.”

Justice Khanna said, “Courts are open to everybody. Second, high courts are constitutional courts. If we permit one person, then we have to permit everyone”.

Sibal said the court can exercise discretion. “This is a case where that discretion ought to be exercised.” Singhvi added, “Your Lordships’ discretion will be applicable depending on the context….”.

But the bench did not agree and said, “Please go to the high court. We will not entertain it. We follow consistency. I have been doing it as much as I know, my brother and sister have also been following that”.