PMLA court rejects Hemant Soren's plea to halt land scam proceedings
Synopsis
A PMLA court in Ranchi has rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's bid to pause land scam proceedings, bringing the formal framing of charges one step closer. With his discharge petition already dismissed and the High Court having refused a stay, Soren's legal options are narrowing as the 24 September hearing approaches.
Key Takeaways
A special PMLA court in Ranchi on 21 September 2026 rejected Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren's plea to stall proceedings in the alleged land scam and money laundering case.
The court dismissed the application as devoid of merit , ruling that further investigation does not warrant a halt to ongoing proceedings.
The case involves the alleged purchase and sale of 8.86 acres of land and related money laundering allegations.
Soren's discharge petition had already been rejected; the Jharkhand High Court had also declined to stay proceedings.
The next hearing is scheduled for 24 September 2026 at 3:30 pm for arguments on framing of charges.
The court directed the ED to furnish afresh a list of documents supplied to the defence but not relied upon by the prosecution.
A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi on Monday, 21 September 2026, rejected a plea filed by Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren seeking postponement of proceedings and the framing of charges in the alleged land scam and money laundering case. The court of the Special Judge (AJC-1), Ranchi Civil Court, dismissed Soren's application as devoid of merit, fixing 24 September as the next date of hearing at 3:30 pm.
What Soren's Plea Argued
Soren's counsel contended before the court that since the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had sought permission for further investigation and the filing of a supplementary charge sheet, all ongoing proceedings — including the framing of charges — should be kept in abeyance until that probe was completed. The defence cited a Supreme Court ruling in support, arguing that a trial should not commence while an investigation remains underway.
Why the Court Rejected It
The special court was unpersuaded, observing that the continuation of further investigation and the filing of a supplementary complaint did not warrant a halt to ongoing proceedings. It noted that under the law, further investigation can continue even after the original complaint has been filed, and any supplementary complaint would form part of the same case. The court's reasoning effectively removes a procedural shield that Soren's legal team had sought to erect around the charge-framing stage.
What the ED Said
The ED's special public prosecutor opposed the plea, alleging that it was a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The agency also informed the court that Soren's discharge petition had already been rejected, and that the Jharkhand High Court had earlier declined to stay further proceedings in the matter — making this the latest in a series of failed legal interventions by the defence.
Key Directions and Technical Glitch
Alongside rejecting the plea, the court directed the ED to furnish afresh a list of documents already supplied to the defence but not being relied upon by the prosecution. Separately, Soren could not mark his appearance before the court via video conferencing on Monday due to a technical glitch. The court has now scheduled the matter for 24 September at 3:30 pm for further hearing and consideration of charges.
Background: The Land Scam Case
The case centres on the alleged purchase and sale of 8.86 acres of land in Jharkhand and related money laundering allegations. The ED has initiated proceedings against Soren and several others in connection with the matter. Charges are yet to be formally framed. Notably, Soren was previously arrested by the ED in a separate case and later secured bail — meaning this is not his first brush with federal agency scrutiny. The rejection of his postponement plea brings the charge-framing stage significantly closer, a development that carries both legal and political consequences for the ruling dispensation in Jharkhand.
Point of View
It closes what had become a standard delaying tactic in ED cases. More broadly, Soren's legal team has now failed at every stage — discharge petition, High Court stay, and now this postponement plea. The charge-framing hearing on 24 September will be a pivotal moment; once charges are formally framed, the trial phase begins in earnest and the political fallout in Jharkhand could intensify. Opposition parties will watch closely, while the ruling coalition will need to manage the optics of a sitting chief minister facing active PMLA proceedings.
NationPress
21 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the PMLA court reject Hemant Soren's plea?
The court rejected Soren's plea because it found that the ED's ongoing further investigation and plans to file a supplementary charge sheet did not legally require a halt to existing proceedings. Under PMLA provisions, further investigation can continue alongside the original complaint, and any supplementary complaint would simply become part of the same case.
What is the land scam case against Hemant Soren about?
The case involves allegations of the purchase and sale of 8.86 acres of land in Jharkhand and related money laundering charges. The ED has initiated proceedings against Soren and several others in connection with the matter; formal charges are yet to be framed.
What happens at the 24 September hearing?
The special PMLA court has scheduled 24 September 2026 at 3:30 pm for arguments on the framing of charges against Soren. If charges are formally framed at or after this hearing, the trial phase of the case will commence.
Has Soren tried to stop these proceedings before?
Yes. Soren's discharge petition was previously rejected, and the Jharkhand High Court had also declined to stay further proceedings in the matter. Monday's rejection of the postponement plea is the latest in a series of unsuccessful legal challenges by the defence.
What did the court direct the ED to do?
Alongside rejecting Soren's plea, the court directed the ED to furnish afresh a list of documents that had already been supplied to the defence but are not being relied upon by the prosecution — a routine but important evidentiary step ahead of charge framing.
