The Jharkhand High Court on Monday, 2 November 2026, imposed a fine of ₹8,000 on the Jharkhand state government for seeking additional time to file its reply in a petition challenging an FIR registered under the SC/ST Act against former Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials. The penalty has been directed to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA).

Background of the Case

The petition was filed by former ED officials, including Kapil Raj and Devvrat Jha, seeking quashing of an FIR that was registered at the instance of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. The FIR, lodged on 31 January 2024 at the SC/ST police station in Ranchi, also named former ED officers Anupam Kumar and Aman Patel, among others.

According to the complaint filed by Soren, ED officials allegedly asked him to remain in Ranchi between 29 and 31 January 2024, while simultaneously conducting a search at his Delhi residence without prior notice and in his absence. He further alleged that the agency's conduct caused him mental and social harassment and that attempts were made to damage his reputation through media reports.

Court's Escalating Penalties

This is not the first time the High Court has penalised parties for seeking extensions. In a previous hearing, the court had imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on Chief Minister Hemant Soren himself after his counsel sought four weeks' time to file a response. With the latest ₹8,000 fine on the state government, both principal parties on the respondent side have now been penalised for procedural delays — a clear signal from the bench that it intends to move the matter along without further deferral.

Senior advocate Amit Kumar Das and advocate Saurabh Kumar appeared on behalf of the former ED officials during Monday's proceedings.

Current Status of the Petition

The High Court had earlier granted a stay on further proceedings arising from the FIR, including police notices issued to the ED officials, pending the state's response. The court had simultaneously sought an explanation from the state government — a response that has now been delayed twice, attracting successive fines.

Notably, the case sits at the intersection of a sitting Chief Minister's criminal complaint and a central investigative agency's field operations, lending it considerable political and legal weight. The ED officials have maintained that the FIR is an attempt to intimidate federal investigators; the state has not publicly detailed its counter-position ahead of filing its formal reply.

What Happens Next

With the court having penalised both Soren and the state government for delays, the respondents are now under pressure to submit their responses without further extensions. Any continued non-compliance could invite steeper penalties or adverse observations from the bench. The case is being closely watched as an indicator of how courts balance the authority of central enforcement agencies against state-level legal action.