Former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Hemant Soren on Tuesday vehemently denied any connection to the alleged 8.86 acres of land being attributed to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He asserted that there was no substantial evidence linking him to the land, which was projected as proceeds of crime.

In a statement to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Soren said there was no material against him to justify his arrest on January 31, 2024, by the ED under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The 8.86 acres of land is a part of the lands earmarked exclusively for the tribals and the same cannot be alienated from them under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The legal issue the top court will examine on Wednesday is can former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren approach the Supreme Court challenging his arrest under the PMLA, particularly after the trial court has taken cognisance of the case and rejected his bail plea.

Posting for further hearing Soren’s plea against his arrest by the ED on Wednesday, May 22, a vacation bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma asked Hemant Suren, how he intends to overcome the special PMLA court order taking cognisance of the case based on prima facie stuffocation of the material on record that an offence has been committed.

Appearing for Hemant Soren, senior advocate Kapil Sibal laboured to impress upon the court that he was questioning his arrest based on the material that was available with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on January 31, 2024, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Sibal said that the material that was available with the ED on January 31, 2024, alone can be examined to decide whether the arrest was justified or not.

Sibal said that assuming if all the allegations being levelled by the Enforcement Directorate in respect of 8.86 acres of land are taken to be true, they don’t constitute a scheduled offence and hence he cannot be accused of committing an offence covered under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Sibal said that even if Hemant Soren is accused of having the possession of 8.86 acres of land, or had taken the possession of the said land forcibly or illegally, even then it does not constitute a schedule office, for which he can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

However, the court said that when the decision on Soren’s plea challenging his arrest under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was pending before the Jharkhand High Court, the fact that he approached the trial court for bail and the same was refused, cannot be overlooked.

In a poser can the legality of arrest be examined, after the trial court has taken the cognisance and rejected the bail plea by Hemant Soren, the court said, “Here, cognisance has been taken which means that there is a prima facie case. Here your case is that you could not have been arrested under Section 19 as there are no materials to believe that you are guilty. When the trial court has taken cognisance, that will impact that argument.”

Sibal said, “I am raising an issue of Constitutional infirmity as it is related to freedom. Taking away of the liberty under Article 21 is as per the procedure established by law” and can it ever be a law that the validity of the arrest cannot be gone into by the High Court or Supreme court merely because the trial court has taken cognisance of the case.

He said that the procedure established by law under Article 21 to deprive a person of his freedom is Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that has been invoked by the ED in the case of Hemant Soren.

Having pointed to the constitutional infirmity in the case involving Hemant Soren’s liberty, Sibal said let the court say that “after trial court has taken cognisance of the case, my right under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act gets extinguished.”

On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate referred to the chain of instances to point out that it was Hemant Soren who was holding the land in question and referred to the tampering of the land records.

In view of the legal issues that came up in the course of the arguments, the court said that it would examine the legal aspects involved and posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday, May 22, 2024.

The Jharkhand High Court had reserved its order on February 28 and it was pronounced on May 3, after Soren approached the top court seeking direction to the High Court to deliver judgment. The High Court had rejected his plea against the ED.

The former Jharkhand Chief Minister had approached the Supreme Court on May 6 against the Jharkhand High Court order dismissing his plea challenging his arrest by the ED in an alleged money laundering case.

The Jharkhand High Court had reserved its order on February 28 and it was pronounced on May 3, after Soren approached the top court seeking direction to the High Court to deliver judgment. The High Court had rejected his plea.