Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that the proceedings in the Public Interest Litigation filed against Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren, before the high court over the issue of money laundering are not maintainable.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the judgment today in the SLP filed by State of Jharkhand and Soren challenging the High Court's decision.

Shiv Shankar Sharma, a PIL activist filed a PIL before the Jharkhand High Court leveling allegations against Chief Minister Hemant Soren of money laundering through several shell companies owned by him. The High Court held the PIL to be maintainable and the same was challenged before Supreme Court. 

In August, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia had stayed the proceedings in the said Public Interest Litigation.

Court had further reserved the order in the plea by the Jharkhand government challenging the order of the High Court wherein it held the PIL maintainable. 

Arguments made before Court:

Appearing for the State of Jharkhand, Sr. Adv Kapil Sibal had argued that the PILs have been filed in contradiction to the guidelines of the Supreme Court. He argued that the High Court decided on both maintainability and merits, while the Supreme Court had asked it to decide on maintainability alone.

Sibal submitted that the court heard the matter despite the PIL not meeting the guidelines. He said that the petitioner has not disclosed the background of the lawyer in the PIL. Sibal alleged that the petitioner's lawyer is notorious for filing PILs. He argued that there is no rationale behind the PIL while there is an intent. He told the court that this is not an isolated PIL but it is well planned.

Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv, appearing for Hemant Soren, argued that the PIL petitioner's father was a prosecution witness in connection with a murder case involving Sibu Soren. He recollected a speech by Justice (retd) Bhanumathi, former Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court, wherein she said that PILs are being misused in Jharkhand and there is a lawyer who appears only in PILs and earns crores of rupees.

Rohatgi argued that the Jharkhand High Court went to the extent of commenting on Sibal and him who appeared for the State and Soren respectively. He submitted that there are no credentials shown by the petitioners to the satisfaction of the court. 

Background:

The Special Leave Petition has been filed by the State Government against the High Court order which accepted the maintainability of the PIL petition filed against the Chief Minister raising the issue of money laundering through several shell companies owned by Soren. 

The High Court bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad had noted that the PIL is maintainable.

The High Court order was passed after the direction of the Apex Court, wherein a bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi had directed the High Court of Jharkhand to consider the issue of maintainability first. The order was passed in an application filed by the Government challenging the PIL filed by one Shiv Shankar Sharma against the alleged shell companies owned by Chief Minister Hemant Soren on the ground of maintainability of the plea.

Case Title: State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma