LI Network
Published on: January 23, 2024 at 12:50 IST
The Delhi High Court has refused to intervene in the ongoing proceedings initiated by the Lokpal of India against Shibu Soren, the Chief of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), concerning a case related to disproportionate assets.
Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the plea filed by Soren challenging the Lokpal proceedings is premature at this stage.
The Court emphasized that the Lokpal is yet to assess the material provided by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine whether an investigation into the matter is warranted.
Justice Prasad expressed that it is not appropriate for the court to intervene at this point, leaving it to the Lokpal to decide if there is sufficient grounds for further investigation.
The Court rejected Soren’s argument, presented by his counsel, asserting that the entire complaint was motivated, and the Lokpal would inevitably order an investigation. Justice Prasad highlighted the independence of the Lokpal’s office and dismissed claims that it could be influenced by political considerations, emphasizing that the Lokpal would evaluate the matter independently.
“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,” Justice Prasad stated.
Shibu Soren approached the court challenging the Lokpal proceedings initiated following a complaint filed on August 5, 2020, by BJP’s Nishikant Dubey, alleging that Soren accumulated substantial wealth through corrupt means. The high court had previously stayed the proceedings before the Lokpal in September 2022.
Soren contended that the complaint was false, frivolous, and vexatious, citing Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, which imposes a statutory bar against the Lokpal assuming jurisdiction to inquire into any complaint made after seven years from the alleged offense.
On the contrary, the Lokpal of India opposed Soren’s plea, labeling it “completely misconceived” and asserting that none of Soren’s fundamental rights had been violated.
The Lokpal stated that a preliminary inquiry was a proper course of action to ascertain whether Soren and his family held properties as mentioned in the complaint.
The Lokpal affirmed that the matter was still open to adjudication, including the issue of limitation, and no final view had been formed.
Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
