Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Hemant Soren, son of Shibu Soren – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No.145 of 2024
Decided on : 28-02-2024
[Writ Petition] - [Participation in Legislative Assembly] - [Article 19(1)(a), Article 105, Article 194, Section 62(2), Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951] - The court analyzed the constitutional provisions regarding the rights of members of the legislature, particularly focusing on Articles 19(1)(a), 105, and 194, which govern freedom of speech and privileges in legislative assemblies. It interpreted that while members have rights to participate in legislative proceedings, these rights are not absolute and can be curtailed in cases of valid detention. The court emphasized that the right to participate in a session does not equate to a fundamental right, especially when a member is in custody due to serious allegations. The court concluded that the petitioner’s absence would not cause irreparable harm to the legislative process, given the ruling party's majority, thus influencing its decision to deny the petitioner's request to participate in the Budget Session.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Hemant Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly and Chief Minister, sought permission to participate in the Budget Session while in custody due to allegations of money laundering. His request was denied by the Special Judge, leading to the current writ petition challenging that order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s right to participate in the assembly is not a fundamental right and can be restricted due to valid detention. It noted that the ruling party holds a significant majority, thus the absence of the petitioner would not lead to irreparable harm or a collapse of the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's right to participate in the assembly session is a fundamental right. 2. Whether the valid detention of the petitioner affects his rights as a member of the assembly. 3. Whether the absence of the petitioner would cause irreparable loss to the legislative process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to participate in legislative proceedings is not absolute and can be curtailed in cases of valid detention. It distinguished between fundamental rights and privileges of legislators, emphasizing that the latter can be limited under certain circumstances, particularly when serious allegations are involved.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ruled that the petitioner would not be allowed to participate in the ongoing Budget Session.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. This Court, before proceeding to pass order on merit deems, it fit and proper to refer herein the order passed by this Court on 26th February, 2024, which reads as under:
2. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the defect, as pointed out by the office, has already been removed.
3. Mr. Amit Kumar, Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has sought for leave of this Court to file counter affidavit in the Court. It has been submitted that the copy of the same has been served upon Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Let it be taken on record.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not require to file any response to the counter affidavit.
6. One supplementary affidavit has also been filed, which has been prayed to be taken on record. The copy of the same has been served upon Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D.
7. Let it be taken on record.
8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent also does not require time to file any response.
9. The compilation of judgments have also been filed by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-E.D. by serving soft copy of the said judgments upon Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, both the parties have submitted that the matter may be heard on merit.
11. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at length.
12. In response, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Addl. S.G.I being assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das has argued on behalf of respondent-Enforcement Directorate.
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also responded to the argument so made by learned senior counsel for the respondent.
14. Hearing of both the parties concluded. The judgment is reserved.”
Prayer:
2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking therein following reliefs:
b. for granting permission to the petitioner to participate in the Budget Session scheduled to be held from 23.02.2024 up to 02.03.2024 in the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.”
Brief facts of the case:
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition as also in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which needs to be refer herein reads as under:
4. It appears from the factual aspects that an FIR bearing No. 272 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 was registered by P.S. Sadar, Ranchi against one Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Revenue Sub Inspector under Section 465/467/468/469 476/466/420/379/474 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid FIR, ECIR bearing No. RNZO/25/23 was recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office on 26.06.2023.
5. In connection with the said case, various summons were issued to the present petitioner, namely, Hemant Soren and on 20.01.2024 the petitioner was questioned by the ED Officials and thereafter he was taken into custody by the ED Officials on 31.01.2024.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner 1st cum Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi on 01.02.2024.
7. For remand of the petitioner, the respondent-ED preferred an application before learn
The court established that the right to participate in legislative proceedings is not a fundamental right and can be restricted in cases of valid detention, particularly when serious allegations are ....
Point of law: Election – Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
The power of suspension of legislative members extends beyond Assembly grounds, and procedural adherence to natural justice does not nullify Assembly decisions unless serious prejudice exists.
The court emphasized the need for a graded approach in the suspension of members from the legislative assembly, highlighting that such action should be necessary for the orderly conduct of the House'....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prohibition against the exercise of the right to vote under Sec. 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 applies to the electi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning the internal functioning of the State Legislature. The court emphasized that the High Co....
The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, allowing restrictions based on criminal background to protect electoral integrity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
