Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Shibu Soren, a sitting Member of the Parliament in Rajya Sabha nominated from the State of Jharkhand seeking to quash the complaint filed before Lokpal along with orders passed by Lokpal, regarding allegations of corruption by amassing huge wealth, properties and assets by unscrupulous means. Subramonium Prasad, J., refused to interfere in the proceedings as it is for the Lokpal to decide as to whether there is sufficient material to proceed further for investigation or not to subserve the purpose for which the Act has been brought out.
The Petitioner is the President of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, a State Political party in the State of Jharkhand. The complainant (Respondent 2) is also a Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha from Godda, Jharkhand. It is alleged in the said complaint that the Petitioner in his name and in the name of his family members including sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, friends, associates and various companies etc. has acquired several immoveable properties including plots of lands (residential, commercial and built up properties) in various districts of Jharkhand such as Ranchi, Dhanbad, Dumka etc. It is also alleged that the Petitioner and his family members including his son have invested in various companies owned by a very close friend of the petitioner, despite having shown consistent losses in their books of accounts, have been purchasing large properties in and around Ranchi and Kolkata.
Lokpal directed a CBI inquiry based on a complaint filed by another Member of Parliament. The petitioner, denying ownership of the alleged properties, raised objections to Lokpal’s jurisdiction. After a preliminary investigation, the CBI submitted its report on 29.06.2022. Thus, the present petition was filed challenging Lokpal’s jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, arguing that it is time-barred under Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The petitioner asserted that the report dated 01-07-2021 was not final, and the final report on 29-06-2022 exceeded the prescribed time limit under section 20(4) of the Act. The primary contention is that the complaint, made seven years after the alleged property acquisition, is barred by limitation, and Lokpal failed to examine its admissibility under Section 53 before initiating proceedings. The petitioner seeks dismissal of the complaint and actions against the complainant for a false complaint.
The Court observed that Section 20 of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act mandates a preliminary inquiry by Lokpal to determine if there exists a prima facie case before ordering a full investigation. The petitioner argued that the complaint is barred by Section 53 of the Act due to the seven-year limitation, but the court noted that two properties fall within the prescribed period. The court emphasized the Act’s purpose of ensuring purity in public service and suggested that contentions should be raised before the Lokpal during the inquiry, avoiding premature dismissal. The court leaned towards an interpretation that furthers the Act’s objectives and makes it workable.
The Court further noted that the Lokpal is yet to evaluate the material provided by the CBI to decide whether an investigation is necessary. It stresses that writ courts should refrain from interfering in matters pending before an authority, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or the allegations are absurd. The court rejected the argument that the entire complaint is politically motivated, asserting the independence of the Lokpal. It underscored that Lokpal will independently examine the matter and decide whether an investigation is warranted. The court also interpreted Section 20 of the Act, noting that the timeline is to ensure a timely conclusion of the inquiry process without subjecting the public servant to unnecessary harassment.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition without delving into the merits of the case.
[Shibu Soren v. Lokpal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 392, decided on 22-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Senior Advocate with Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Mr. Vaibhav Tomar and Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI with Mr.Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Mr. Akhil Hasija, Ms. Gauri, Mr. Shivash Dwivedi and Ms. Kirti Dadeech, Mr. Ojaswa Pathak and Ms. Apoorv Jha, Advs. for R-1/LOI. Mr. Atmaram NS Nadkarni, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi , Mr. Piyush Vatsa and Mr. Shubham Saxena, Advs. for R-2
