In a hearing on May 21, 2024, the Supreme Court found itself in the middle of a complex legal debate surrounding the arrest of a key figure in a contentious land dispute case. Representing the accused former Chief Minister of Jaharkhand, Mr. Hemant Soren ; prominent lawyer Sibal sparred with Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju, presenting arguments challenging the legality of the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Datta's Emphasis on Scrutiny
The session kicked off with Justice Datta setting the tone, emphasising the necessity for a rigorous examination of whether an arrest could be deemed invalid after the trial court's cognizance. "You say arrest is illegal, so custody is illegal," remarked Justice Datta to Sibal, signalling the crux of the debate. "But then Special Court takes cognisance. So the question we want to ask is if even after cognisance, arrest can be called invalid? This needed an intense debate."
Sibal's Assertion of Illegitimacy
Sibal wasted no time in asserting the alleged illegitimacy of the arrest, pointing out the Enforcement Directorate's purported lack of substantial evidence at the time of apprehension. "The ED officer did not have sufficient material in possession to justify the action," argued Sibal, prompting ASG Raju to counter the assertion.
Justice Datta's Probing Questions
As the legal sparring continued, Justice Datta probed the intricacies of the trial court's findings, questioning the link between the evidence and the accused. "What becomes of the trial court's order that found a prima facie commission of offence?" queried Justice Datta, to which Sibal reiterated the need for the Supreme Court's scrutiny regarding the legality of the arrest.
Allegations of Evidence Tampering and Jurisdictional Overreach
Amidst allegations of evidence tampering and comparisons to similar cases, the courtroom atmosphere remained charged with legal wrangling. Sibal highlighted the civil nature of the land dispute, stressing the ED's purported overreach in pursuing criminal charges. "The land in question had numerous descendants and was a matter of civil dispute," Sibal emphasised, adding that his client, Soren, was not the owner of the land and had been allegedly involved at a young age.
Conclusion and Anticipation for Further Deliberation
The hearing concluded with Justice Datta acknowledging the weight of Soren's plea, hinting at potential consideration for interim relief. With the case slated for further deliberation on May 22, 2024, the legal fraternity awaited the Supreme Court's final verdict on this contentious issue.
Input from Multiple agencies
Media Credits: X
ⒸCopyright 2024. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
