Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

Premature Writ Petition Rejected: Delhi High Court Upholds Lokpal’s Jurisdiction in MP Shibu Soren’s Alleged Corruption Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court’s judgment focused on the question of the Lokpal’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of corruption against a sitting Member of Parliament, Shibu Soren, under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Specifically, it addressed the applicability of Section 53 of the Act, which limits inquiries into complaints made after seven years from the date of the alleged offense, and the Lokpal’s decision-making process under Sections 20(1) and 20(3) of the Act.

Facts and Issues: The case revolved around a complaint filed by Lok Sabha MP, Nishikant Dubey, alleging that Shibu Soren, a Rajya Sabha MP, engaged in corrupt practices and acquired several properties through unfair means. The Lokpal directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1) of the Act. Soren challenged the proceedings, arguing that most acquisitions occurred over seven years ago, hence falling outside Lokpal’s jurisdiction as per Section 53.

Court’s Assessment: The court examined the Lokpal’s authority and process under Sections 20(1) and 20(3) of the Act. It was determined that the Lokpal had correctly initiated a preliminary inquiry to ascertain a prima facie case. The court noted, “the stage at which the question as to whether the complaint is barred under Section 53 is required to be decided, will depend on facts of each case.” It was held that this need not necessarily be decided at the time of ordering a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1)(a) but may be decided after the inquiry report is received.

The court also observed that the complaint Involved allegations beyond just the acquisition of properties, including misuse of power and ongoing incidents of amassing wealth. Therefore, it was not a fit case for the Lokpal to reject the complaint initially as being barred by limitation.

Decision of the Judgment: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Lokpal was yet to make a final decision under Section 20(3) and that the writ petition filed by Shibu Soren was premature. The court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision and upheld the Lokpal’s jurisdiction in proceeding with the complaint.

Date of Decision: 20th February 2024

Shibu Soren vs Lokpal of India & Anr.

 

Similar News