BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had filed a complaint before the Lokpal alleging that Shibu Soren amassed huge wealth and assets by ‘adopting unscrupulous and corrupt means’ in Jharkhand. The Lokpal of India has informed the Delhi High Court that the continuation of the stay order granted to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief Shibu Soren in connection with its anti-corruption proceedings against him will prejudice the case and negatively impact the legislative intent of the Lokpal Act. The submission came in BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s application seeking the vacation of the stay order granted by the high court in favour of Soren. Dubey had filed the complaint before the Lokpal alleging that Soren has amassed huge wealth and assets by “adopting unscrupulous and corrupt means” in Jharkhand, pursuant to which the Lokpal of India initiated proceedings against Soren. Soren moved the high court and on September 12, the court stayed the proceedings initiated by the Lokpal of India against him, observing that the matter required consideration and “till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay of further proceedings pending before the Lokpal”. Soren said the Lokpal has taken cognisance of a “politically motivated, frivolous and misconceived complaint” dated August 5, 2020, filed by Dubey. The matter was listed before a bench of Justice Yashwant Varma on Thursday and was adjourned to November 28. In its reply to Dubey’s vacation of stay application, the Lokpal said that the interim relief is an attempt by Soren to avoid the statutory proceeding initiated against him under the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013, in keeping with the principles of natural justice.

In its reply to Soren’s main plea, the Lokpal said that proceedings before the body have not been vitiated by illegalities and are not devoid of merit or jurisdiction. There has neither been an abuse of the process of law nor have Soren’s fundamental rights been violated. The reply states that the Lokpal was fully justified in ordering a preliminary inquiry against Soren after looking into the nature of the allegations made against him. The body contended that given the nature of the allegations against Soren, a preliminary inquiry was the proper course of action to ascertain whether Soren or his family actually hold the properties mentioned in the complaint, the dates on which they were acquired and the sources of acquisition. “Thus a complaint need not be rejected on a threshold basis merely on dates or events described therein,” it stated. The reply said that Soren has been given an opportunity for a hearing before a decision is made as to whether there exists a “prima facie case” against him. The reply also stated that it was fully justified in granting extensions to the CBI from time to time after reviewing the status of the preliminary inquiry and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, however, Soren who never appeared before the body either in person or through counsel, filed the writ petition before the high court, which is “devoid of merit and is misconceived”. The reply also stated that the matter is open for adjudication and no final view has been formed. The Lokpal has also informed the high court that it has adjourned the matter till further orders from the high court. The application stated that Soren had misled the court by filing the writ petition before the high court. The high court in its September 12 order had noted Soren’s arguments. “It is pointed out by…senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that barring two instances, all other allegations would fall foul of the injunct placed by Section 53. Insofar as the two other instances are concerned, those properties are not stated to have been acquired or held by the petitioner,” Soren had argued. The Lokpal had directed a preliminary inquiry under provisions of the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013, and called for an inquiry report from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Soren said the allegations against him are “ex facie malicious, false, baseless and frivolous” and no instance of a single specified purported act of corruption is alleged in the complaint. The complaint is devoid of any particulars and is “rambling yarn spun” by a “disgruntled and unsuccessful political opponent” of his and the party which has formed government in Jharkhand after the 2019 Assembly elections, he said in the petition.