Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For SIT Probe Into BJP MP Dhullu Mahto's Alleged Disproportionate Assets

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea seeking Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of criminal activities and possession of disproportionate assets/benami properties by BJP MP Dhullu Mahto.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for petitioner-Somnath Chatterjee (a social worker).

The petitioner had initially moved the Jharkhand High Court with a petition in 2018, seeking directions to statutory authorities to file inquiry reports in terms of a 2016 order passed by the Court in a PIL against Mahto. The same was dismissed as a "wagering attempt".

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking constitution of an SIT to investigate the various allegations of disproportionate assets beyond known sources of income, corruption and various illegal activities against Mahto in a time bound manner. He prayed that the SIT be headed by a retired judge of the High Court and comprise officers of Superintendent of Police rank from each of the following - Income Tax Department (ITD), Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Jharkhand Police.

The petitioner also sought transfer of all investigations pending before different agencies to such an SIT, and a writ in the nature of a continuing mandamus to enable the Court to regularly monitor the investigation.

The petitioner argued that affidavits filed by the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department showed the existence of disproportionate assets, but the investigations were not progressing at the proper pace. Opposing the plea, the ED and IT Department submitted that the petition was not maintainable in view of earlier orders passed by the High Court in 2016 and 2024 dismissing similar petitions. They informed the bench that ED had already registered a case based on FIRs against Mahto and that the IT Department had issued notices and was carrying out reassessment proceedings under the IT Act. They also pointed out that the person against whom reliefs were sought (Mahto) had not been impleaded in the petition.

Hearing the parties, the High Court dismissed the PIL. It held that the petition was not maintainable, as similar allegations had already been examined and rejected as not constituting a genuine public interest matter.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. He contends that the authorities admitted in their affidavits before the High Court about discovering benami properties, disproportionate assets, etc. and registered cases against Mahto. Yet, the High Court ignored these facts and did not provide any reason as to why the petitioner's plea was not in public interest.

"The present case raises substantial questions of law of general public importance, including whether constitutional courts can abdicate their responsibility when statutory authorities themselves admit discovery of corruption and benami assets but investigations are left inconclusive for over a decade because the accused person is in a position of power and is able to influence the course of investigation", the plea states.

The petitioner also claims that Mahto has been successfully influencing the course of investigations against him since over 15 years. He urges that the High Court's approach in the matter sends a dangerous signal that overwhelming evidence of corruption against elected representatives can be judicially ignored on technical grounds.

Appearance: Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Anurag Tiwary (for petitioner)

Case Title: SOMNATH CHATTERJEE Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS., Diary No. 50594-2025