Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta on Friday concluded his submissions before the Delhi High Court in a plea filed by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha President Shibu Soren against Lokpal's notice in a disproportionate asset case directing a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Lokpal's notice had been issued on a complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Member of Lok Sabha Nishikant Dubey.

During the hearing, SG Mehta submitted, "When the Lokpal calls upon the alleged delinquent, he can always raise this plea before Lokpal. Otherwise, what will happen? Your Lordships entertaining the writ petition at this stage would be yet another level not contemplated by law who will examine whether Lokpal should hear or not". 

The SG contended, "Complainant might be wrong, might be right...Whether the property belongs to the party is the question. Two of the properties were obtained within two years. The only argument is whether they belong to the party and whether they were purchased from his disproportionate assets or his accounted money is a matter of investigation. Merely saying that the property belongs to someone does not absolve me from my responsibility of facing the Lokpal and if the Lokpal directs facing the investigation. From where these properties were purchased is the question".

"Ultimately, it's his party. He has created the party. It's not the party which was in existence like Indian National Congress for 100 years and he became a President", he added. He also gave an illustration, "If I earn say Rs. 100 crore illegal money, obviously I'll not deposit it in my savings account. There would be a layer of companies". SG said, "Amit Aggarwal is a close friend of Soren's. He is also a purchaser of the party property". 

"The persons who are under the purview of the Lokpal Act are members of Parliament but suppose there is an allegation that I, as a Member of Parliament, have amassed wealth in the name of my son, my wife, my trust, my companies, etc, then the property may not be belonging to me but others can always be investigated and there are properties not in the name of the petitioner (Shibu Soren), but others within 7 years. This will be gone into by the Lokpal", the SG concluded. 

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Subramonium Prasad posted the matter for hearing counter submissions of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on September 18. 

Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appeared for Lokpal of India, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Shibu Soren and Senior Advocate Attmaram N S Nadkarni appeared for the complainant. 

It is to be noted that in November 2022, the Lokpal of India had informed the High Court that it is well within its rights to initiate an inquiry against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha President Shibu Soren in his plea against the Lokpal's notice in a disproportionate asset case directing for a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 

Lokpal of India in its affidavit had submitted that "such an inquiry was initiated only to ascertain whether there existed a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter. Therefore, a direction to conduct a preliminary inquiry was not a determination of the merits of a complaint and did not prejudice the public servant concerned in any manner."

Over the issue of delay in filing the report of a preliminary inquiry being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the affidavit stated, "Various circumstances justify the grant of extensions by the Lokpal of India". 

"In view of the above the Lokpal of India was fully justified in granting extensions from time to time to the CBI after reviewing the status of the preliminary inquiry and taking into account the totality of the circumstances," the affidavit added.

The petition filed by Soren through Advocate Vaibhav Tomar alleged that the concerned order had been issued by taking cognizance of a politically motivated, frivolous, and misconceived complaint. Through the notice, a Preliminary Inquiry had been directed to be conducted by CBI under Section 20(1)(a) of the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 in view of a disproportionate asset case.

The plea alleged that the Lokpal of India acted on a mischievous, false, frivolous, and motivated complaint which alleged that Soren had "over a period of more than 10 years" amassed huge wealth, properties, and assets by adopting unscrupulous and corrupt means in the State of Jharkhand in his own name and in the names of his family members including sons, daughters, daughter-in-law, friends and various companies in various districts of Jharkhand, such as Ranchi, Dhanbad, and Dumka, etc.

Additionally, the plea submitted that the Lokpal of India under the precincts of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 could not have taken cognizance of the complaint as the complaint itself recorded that the properties listed at 1 and 2 admittedly belonged to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (a registered political party), and none of the properties were acquired within 7 years of the date of the complaint.

Furthermore, it added that the statute bars Lokpal from inquiring or investigating "into any complaint, if the complaint is made after the expiry of a period of 7 years from the date on which the offence mentioned in such complaint is alleged to have been committed".

"No instance of even a single specific purported act of corruption is alleged in the complaint," the plea added.

It alleged, "The complaint is devoid of any particulars whatsoever and is a rambling yarn spun by the Respondent No.2 (Dubey), a disgruntled and unsuccessful political opponent of the Petitioner (Soren) and his party which has formed the Government in the State of Jharkhand pursuant to the Assembly elections held in 2019."

Case Title: Shibu Soren v. Lokpal of India & Anr.

Statue: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013