Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to interfere in Lokpal proceedings initiated against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha President Shibu Soren in a disproportionate asset case. 

The court was dealing with a plea filed by Soren against Lokpal's notice in a disproportionate asset case directing a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked orally, "The plea is premature at this stage."

"This Court, therefore, does not want to enter into this realm at this juncture, and it is for the Lokpal to take a decision as to whether there is sufficient material to proceed further for investigation or not in order to subserve the purpose for which the Act has been brought out," Justice Prasad said.

"Writ courts cannot substitute themselves as an authority which has been vested with a duty under the Statute to consider as to whether there is material in it or not for ordering investigation. The writ petition, therefore, is premature in nature," the court stated.

Justice Prasad said that the Office of Lokpal is completely independent, and an argument that the Lokpal would be influenced by political consideration cannot be countenanced. "This allegation that the proceedings before the Lokpal are vitiated and can be politically motivated cannot be accepted," he said.

"The Lokpal will examine the entire matter independently and shall take a decision as to whether an investigation has to be ordered or not which order is always amenable for challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The CBI has submitted a preliminary inquiry and the Lokpal has to take a decision as to whether to proceed further in the case or not," he added.

The court, while explicitly refraining from commenting on the merits of the complaint at hand, underscored the severe repercussions of corruption, likening it to a contagious plague that, if left unchecked, spreads rapidly, akin to a fire in a jungle.

The court also referred to a Supreme Court decision that portrayed corruption as not only detrimental but potentially disastrous to society.

The court emphasized the crucial role of the Lokpal Act, highlighting its inception to instill public confidence in the integrity of individuals holding high offices, including the prime minister. It said that the statutory limitation of seven years, as outlined in Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, preventing the filing of complaints after the specified period, should not override the fundamental purpose for which the law was enacted.

According to the court, Section 53 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, serves as a protective measure to prevent unwarranted harassment of public servants but should not compromise the overarching objective of combating corruption in high offices.

The court stated that corruption is not merely anti-people but is also a threat to democracy, social order, and the cultural heritage of a nation. It further drew parallels between corruption and HIV, describing it as incurable and likening it to royal thievery.

The court, aligning itself with the Supreme Court's stance, opined that the efficiency of public service hinges on the sincere dedication of public servants to their duties. The court concluded that unless corruption is curbed at its nascent stages, it has the potential to disrupt the socio-economic-political fabric of an otherwise thriving society.

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. 

About the Plea

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 the 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.