Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the criminal trial in a money laundering case against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate on his plea seeking to quash the proceedings.A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, directed that further steps in the trial court remain on hold until further orders. The court’s intervention marks a significant development in a case that has shaped political discourse in Jharkhand and drawn national attention to the scope of investigative powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Soren had approached the apex court challenging the legality of the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint and the continuation of proceedings before a special court. His petition argued that the prosecution was unsustainable in law and that the ingredients required to establish an offence under the money laundering statute were not made out. The Bench issued formal notice to the central agency, seeking its response.
The case stems from allegations linked to an alleged land scam in Jharkhand, where the Enforcement Directorate claimed that parcels of land were fraudulently acquired and proceeds were laundered through a network of associates. Soren, who heads the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and leads a coalition government in the state, has denied wrongdoing and described the action against him as politically motivated.
Earlier phases of the investigation saw Soren summoned multiple times by the Enforcement Directorate for questioning. The agency later filed a prosecution complaint before a special court designated to try offences under the anti-money laundering law. The trial court had taken cognisance of the complaint, paving the way for further proceedings, which now stand stayed.
The Supreme Court’s order does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the case but effectively pauses the trial process. Legal experts note that such interim relief is granted when the court is prima facie satisfied that substantial questions of law arise, particularly where issues of jurisdiction, procedural compliance, or interpretation of statutory provisions are involved.
Soren’s counsel is understood to have argued that the Enforcement Directorate’s case was predicated on predicate offences that themselves were under challenge, and that continuation of the money laundering prosecution without a legally sustainable foundation would cause irreparable harm. The petition reportedly questioned whether the agency had complied with mandatory procedural safeguards laid down by law and judicial precedents.
The Enforcement Directorate has, in other high-profile cases, maintained that money laundering is a distinct offence, independent of the outcome of the underlying criminal case, provided that proceeds of crime are established. The agency is likely to place its position before the Supreme Court in response to the notice.
The political backdrop adds weight to the legal battle. Soren had previously resigned as Chief Minister amid mounting pressure during the investigation and was later reinstated after securing support from coalition partners. The case has been cited by opposition parties as an example of what they describe as the selective use of central agencies, while the ruling coalition at the Centre has consistently defended investigative actions as lawful and evidence-based.
Judicial scrutiny of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has intensified over the past few years. The Supreme Court has upheld several stringent provisions of the law, including those relating to arrest and attachment of property, while also clarifying procedural safeguards in individual cases. Observers point out that the balance between empowering investigative agencies and protecting individual liberties remains a recurring theme in constitutional litigation.
For Jharkhand, the stay order provides immediate political relief. With assembly elections approaching in the state, the legal cloud over the Chief Minister has been a central campaign issue. A pause in the trial may allow the government to function without the immediate distraction of court appearances and potential coercive steps.