The story so far: The political crisis in Jharkhand intensified further on Tuesday, August 30, as the ruling United Progressive Alliance shifted as many as 31 MLAs to the Congress-ruled Chhattisgarh to avoid any attempt by the Opposition BJP to poach its legislators in the State.
Uncertainty looms large in the State as Jharkhand Mukti Morcha head and Chief Minister Hemant Soren faces the possibility of disqualification as an MLA for alleged violation of electoral laws, which could decide the fate of his ruling government. The Governor of the State is yet to reveal his decision on the disqualification.
While Mr. Soren has said that “nothing untoward” is going to happen and his coalition is ready to face any situation, he has been making attempts to keep his flock together, from holding marathon meetings to ferrying 39 UPA MLAs on a boat ride to a guest house in Khunti district on August 27 to come back to Ranchi later that day.
Why is Hemant Soren facing disqualification?
In February this year, BJP leader and former Jharkhand Chief Minister Raghubar Das had alleged that Mr. Soren misused his office by allocating a stone quarrying lease on government land to himself while he was the Minister-in-charge of mines in 2021.
Mr. Das alleged that Mr. Soren allotted to himself a mining lease for a stone quarry in a 0.88-acre land parcel in the Angara Block of Ranchi.
The BJP complained to the State’s Governor Ramesh Bais on February 11 that this act was in violation of Section 9(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The 1951 Act lays down the rules for the conduct of elections in the Parliament or in State Assemblies and also about the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Houses and Assemblies. Section 9(A) provides that a government representative should be disqualified if there exists a contract entered into by him with the government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government.
The Governor then referred the BJP’s complaint to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its opinion, as required by law, on March 28. On August 25, the ECI wrote to the Governor its decision in a sealed envelope. State BJP leaders triggered a row by saying that the commission had recommended the “disqualification of Mr Soren as member of the State Assembly”.
However, the Governor has yet to come out with any decision over the reported notice of the commission.
If the Governor does disqualify Mr. Soren, he could remain as the Chief Minister of the State for up to six months without being an MLA. He could also get elected in the meantime.
In case of disqualification, Mr. Soren, party sources said, would resign from his post and immediately stake claim with supporting MLAs before the Governor to form a fresh government and contest election within six months.
A State BJP leader told The Hindu on the other hand: “But if he is disqualified as an MLA and barred from contesting elections for a specific period of time, it will definitely become difficult for him to continue as Chief Minister”.
JMM sources said, however, that there are multiple options available to the Chief Minister from nominating a family member for his post to approaching the Supreme Court against the Governor’s decision.
What are the petitions he faces in the High Court?
Disqualification through the Governor’s office aside, a potential corruption investigation is awaiting Mr. Soren.
A set of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), while presently stayed by the Supreme Court, are pending in the Jharkhand High Court pertaining to money laundering and corruption involving Mr. Soren. Three pleas, two of them alleging direct involvement of the Chief Minister, were filed in the High Court in 2019, 2021, and 2022.
The 2021 plea filed by one Shiv Kumar Sharma calls for an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Income Tax Department into the alleged laundering of money via some shell companies said to be linked to Mr. Soren’s family members.
The petition claims that the Chief Minister has “certain persons who work for him and they are the investment agents” asked by Mr. Soren and his brother Basant to manage businesses like mining, liquor, and real estate.
It further alleges that these persons are connected with each other through shell companies to invest black money from the proceeds of the above-mentioned businesses. It also mentions companies where the CM’s wife, Kalpana Soren, and another relative Sarla Soren are directors.
The plea states that the “money trail is quite clear” and the “modus is quite simple because Mr. Hemant Soren and Mr. Basant Soren are getting major share of profit from these firms and these persons have amassed not less than hundreds of crores out of this”. The petitioner, Mr. Sharma states that an investigation by central agencies is required as the district police cannot conduct such an investigation owing to political and bureaucratic “high-ups” being at the “helm of affairs”.
The 2022 petition, also filed by Mr. Sharma, seeking prosecution against Mr. Soren, makes the same allegation as the BJP that the CM, while in charge of the mining department in 2021, issued a mining lease in his own name “implicating offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code”.
A third petition, filed by one Anil Kumar Dubey in 2019, was also being heard in the High Court together with the above-mentioned ones. It seeks an ED investigation into 15 FIRs filed in Khunti district and one in Arki over the alleged embezzlement of funds for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
The Jharkhand government challenged the maintainability of the first two PILs in the High Court, questioning the credentials of the petitioner Mr. Sharma. The counsel for the State, Kapil Sibal, said that the plea had a mala fide intention as the petitioner's father had stood as a witness against the CM’s father, Shibu Soren in a criminal case, in which the latter was convicted only to later be exonerated by the High Court and Supreme court. It was out of this “grudge” that Mr. Sharma had filed his petition. As for the mining lease petition, Mr. Sibal stated that a complaint was already being handled by the Election Commission of India.
On June 3, however, the high court decided that the PILs could not be thrown out on the ground of maintainability. The High Court’s decision was challenged by the Chief Minister and the State government in the Supreme Court, which on August 17 reserved its order in the matter and stayed the High Court proceedings.
What is the ED already investigating in the State?
The ED began its investigation in the MGNREGA money laundering case in 2020 based on the 16 FIRs and charge sheets filed by the Jharkhand vigilance bureau against Jharkhand junior engineer, Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, a few years back for allegedly “abusing his official position and indulging in embezzlement of Rs.18 crore government funds by way of forgery and misappropriation of funds”.
The agency conducted raids in this case in May, after which it nabbed Jharkhand Mining Secretary Pooja Singhal, who was the District Collector from 2007 to 2013 in the Khunti, Chatra, and Palamu districts. The ED alleged that irregularities were found in the accounts of the scheme during her tenure and money was recovered from her residence.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED in the High Court, had mentioned the linkages between the three PILs, stating during the MGNREGA probe, IAS officer Pooja Singhal’s involvement was found and she was also involved in the granting of the mining lease to Mr. Soren. He also said that some shell companies mentioned in Mr. Sharma’s PIL also emerged during the MGNREGA funds investigation.
Besides, the ED is also carrying out a separate investigation into illegal mining in the Sahebganj region of Jharkhand, in which it has already arrested Pankaj Mishra, the MLA representative of the Chief Minister and one Prem Prakash, from whose residents it recovered AK-47 refiles. As part of the probe, the ED has so far seized ₹5.34 crore in cash, ₹13.32 crore lying in 50 bank accounts and one inland vessel worth ₹30 crore, besides several stone crushers and trucks.
