New Delhi, Nov 7 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the appeals of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren and the state government against a high court order accepting the maintainability of PILs for a probe in the mining lease issue, saying it was "abuse of process of court".

The apex court, which also set aside the Jharkhand High Court's June 3 order, said it was not proper for the high court to entertain a PIL which was based on "mere allegations and half-baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the court with unclean hands".

Also Read | MP: Three Held After Viral Video Shows Them Brutally Beating Up Woman in Indore.

“We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a high court to take cognisance of the matter on these generalised submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court,” a bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justices S R Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.

"Satyamev Jayate," Soren, who has been accused of granting himself a mining lease as the state's mining minister, said on Twitter after the Supreme Court's ruling.

Also Read | Twitter Told to Block Handles of Congress, Bharat Jodo Yatra Over Copyright Issues by Bengaluru Court; Party Says 'Pursuing All Legal Remedies At Our Disposal'.

The apex court's verdict came on appeals by the Jharkhand government and Soren against the high court's order that accepted the maintainability of the PILs.

The apex court had earlier restrained the high court from proceedings with the PILs seeking a probe against Soren in the mining lease issue.

The top court noted the non-disclosure of petitioner's credentials before the high court and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under the Rules, 2010 and added that this further discredits these petitions.

“The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the high court. In our view, such a petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold itself,” it said.

What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the bona fide of the petitioner and it is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL, it said.

The apex court noted that in the first PIL before the high court, the allegations which were made were of money laundering and money being invested in shell companies.

The PIL had sought an investigation by the court and also a direction to the investigating agencies like CBI or Enforcement Directorate to investigate.

“This in our view is again an abuse of the process of the court, as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations, there is nothing placed before the court which in any way may be called to be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable…,” the top court said.

It said if the petitioner has a genuine reason to pursue the matter, he has his remedies available under the Companies Act or other provisions of the law but on generalised averments, the court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities.

“Allegations of corruption and siphoning off money from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without substantiating the allegations in any manner whatsoever and is therefore only asking the court to direct CBI or ED to investigate the matter. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court,” it said, adding that the courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes.

The bench said there was no finding by the high court that any delay in intervention in this matter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant which may have justified the relaxation of the rules.

It noted that a similar PIL was dismissed by the high court and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner.

“The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a public cause,” the bench said.

It added that the petitioner in this case was admittedly the son of Dr Gautam Sharma who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution in a criminal case against the father of the present Chief Minister and therefore “the Chief Minister has alleged an old enmity and personal vendetta at the hands of the petitioner”.

It said allegations of money laundering through shell companies has not been supplemented by any kind of evidence and names of persons who are allegedly responsible for the operation of these companies have been mentioned, but without producing any concrete evidence and it has been stated that these persons are connected/close aides or related to the Chief Minister.

“Further, none of the companies has been made a party to the present PILs, before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is sought from the high court to direct the ED to investigate these so called ‘shell companies' without even making the companies a party in the writ proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitating the grievances and these petitions have been filed before the high court, without availing the statutory remedies,” the apex court said.

Both Soren and his Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) have denied the allegations.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)