BJP calls Jharkhand CM Soren 'most corrupt' as High Court clears path for trial

Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren is set to become the first sitting chief minister in India to face court proceedings for framing of charges, after the Jharkhand High Court dismissed his plea to halt the trial in an alleged land scam case. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seized on the ruling to label Soren the 'most corrupt chief minister' in the state's history.

The High Court's decision on Friday clears the way for the Special PMLA Court in Ranchi to proceed with framing charges against Soren, who faces allegations of money laundering and illegally acquiring tribal land. The ruling marks a significant legal setback for the chief minister, who had argued that the trial could not move forward without prior government sanction from the Governor.

What did the BJP say about Soren's legal troubles?

BJP state spokesperson Pratul Sahdeo launched a blistering attack on Soren following the court order, asserting that the chief minister's tenure would be remembered for corruption allegations rather than governance.

“I believe he will probably be the first Chief Minister of the country who, while serving as Chief Minister, will now have to appear before a court,” Sahdeo said. “He had filed a discharge petition in the PMLA court, which was dismissed. He appealed to the High Court, and it was dismissed there as well.”

Sahdeo also pointed to Soren's controversial 40-hour disappearance after his arrest, saying, “Jharkhand was left without a Chief Minister. How can anyone forget such incidents? Hemant Soren-ji is the most corrupt Chief Minister of the most corrupt government in Jharkhand's history.”

The BJP leader accused the ruling Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) government of deceiving tribal communities, claiming the administration “promised to work for the welfare of tribal communities and the sons of the soil, but worked solely for their own self-interest.”

How did the JMM respond to the court ruling?

JMM leader Manoj Pandey struck a more measured tone, expressing confidence in the judicial process and predicting vindication for Soren.

“We respect the judiciary, and we are hopeful that we will receive justice from this very judiciary... We will certainly get justice. We will wait... the arguments will be presented effectively in court,” Pandey said.

Why did the High Court reject Soren's plea?

The High Court's single-judge bench, led by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, rejected Soren's interlocutory application seeking to stay proceedings before the Special PMLA Court. Soren had argued that the trial could not proceed because the Governor had not granted the required government sanction to prosecute him as a public servant.

The court, however, observed that the legal protection of government sanction is designed to shield public servants performing genuine official work from harassment, not to serve as a blanket shield against criminal allegations. The accusations against Soren involve the alleged illegal acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of tribal land in Baragain and the manipulation of government revenue records, which the court noted prima facie have no connection with the lawful discharge of official duties as Chief Minister.

The bench further stated that whether an act is linked to official duty is a matter to be examined through evidence during the trial itself, and that the absence of sanction at this preliminary stage cannot be a reason to halt proceedings. The court warned that any unnecessary delay at the start of a criminal case could harm the preservation of evidence.

What happens next in the Soren case?

The High Court has directed the Special PMLA Court to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by its order. Soren's main petition challenging the rejection of his discharge is scheduled for its next hearing on October 14.

While reports suggest Soren is exploring further legal options, the ruling represents a major hurdle for the chief minister as he fights to remain in office amid serious corruption allegations.

This case carries broader implications for accountability in Indian politics, as it tests whether sitting chief ministers can be held to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens when facing serious criminal charges.