The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday deferred the hearing of two PILs against chief minister Hemant Soren after his lawyer Minakshi Arora said that they have not received the copies of the seven supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma in the PIL 4290/2021.
A surprised court said that Mukul Rohatgi, who last time appeared on behalf of Hemant Soren never raised this issue that copies were not served to them. To this Arora said that she had just taken-up the case and she was not aware of what happened with Mukul Rohatgi.
The next hearing will take place on June 30 and the court directed the petitioner to provide copies of the supplementary petitions to all respondents. But the bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad were unhappy with Amritansh Vatsa, who so far has been appearing on behalf of Hemant Soren.
But it was seen that in PIL 4290/2021 he in the past appeared for Hemant Soren without filing vakalatnama. He also assisted Mukul Rohatgi as Advocate-on-record in this PIL when he was not authorised to do so, as he had not filed the vakalatnama. The court directed him to submit all previous vakalatnama.
During the hearing Arora said that before hearing the merits of the PIL, copies should be provided so that the counter petitions are filed by the respondent Hemant Soren. She said that a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court in this matter, hence, the High Court should defer hearing till July 11. But the court declined this demand and said the hearing can be stopped only if the Supreme Court orders a stay.
Lawyer of the petitioner Rajiv Kumar on this said that the respondents were trying to delay the hearing on one and other pretexts.
Kapil Sibal representing Jharkhand government said that Shiv Shankar Sharma has made a sundry allegation against Hemant Soren, his brother Basant Soren and many other persons. An adverse court order will affect these persons also hence for justice these persons should be given opportunity to argue for them before the court.
SV Raju representing the CBI and the ED opposed this argument. He said that such hearing can’t be granted at this stage. Accused have always had opportunities to prove their innocence, SV Raju said.
