UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — SC halts case against Soren for skipping summons by ED

Q1. With reference to the recent judicial proceedings against the Chief Minister of Jharkhand in the ED summons-defiance case, consider the following statements: 1. In January 2026, the Jharkhand High Court refused to quash the cognisance taken by the Special MP-MLA Court against him in the ED complaint case. 2. In February 2026, a Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India stayed the criminal proceedings and issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate. 3. The Jharkhand High Court, while declining to quash the cognisance, characterised the ED's prosecution as 'in terrorem', a phrase later disapproved by the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above are correct?

1. In January 2026, the Jharkhand High Court refused to quash the cognisance taken by the Special MP-MLA Court against him in the ED complaint case.
2. In February 2026, a Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India stayed the criminal proceedings and issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate.
3. The Jharkhand High Court, while declining to quash the cognisance, characterised the ED's prosecution as 'in terrorem', a phrase later disapproved by the Supreme Court.

• A. 1 and 2 only
• B. 2 and 3 only
• C. 1 and 3 only
• D. 1, 2 and 3

Q2. In the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which was invoked against the Jharkhand Chief Minister, consider the following powers/consequences: 1. Power of ED officers to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents. 2. Deeming of such summons proceedings as 'judicial proceedings' within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. 3. Power of an ED officer to arrest a person without prior judicial warrant under the same provision that authorises the summons. 4. Liability of a person wilfully disobeying a summons to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC. Which of the above is/are NOT correctly attributable to Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002?

1. Power of ED officers to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents.
2. Deeming of such summons proceedings as 'judicial proceedings' within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC.
3. Power of an ED officer to arrest a person without prior judicial warrant under the same provision that authorises the summons.
4. Liability of a person wilfully disobeying a summons to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC.

• A. 3 only
• B. 1 and 3 only
• C. 3 and 4 only
• D. 2 and 4 only

Q3. Under which one of the following provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does the Enforcement Directorate derive the specific power to summon a person — the alleged disobedience of which led to the criminal proceedings recently stayed by the Supreme Court against the Jharkhand Chief Minister?

• A. Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002
• B. Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002
• C. Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002
• D. Section 63 of the PMLA, 2002

Q4. While staying the proceedings against the Jharkhand Chief Minister in February 2026, the Supreme Court described the ED's prosecution as 'in terrorem'. In legal usage, the expression 'in terrorem' most accurately refers to:

• A. A proceeding initiated principally to intimidate or coerce, rather than to obtain a bona fide legal remedy.
• B. A summary proceeding that may be conducted ex parte where the accused is absconding from jurisdiction.
• C. A proceeding instituted in the public interest by a state agency on behalf of an unidentified victim.
• D. A criminal proceeding that, by statute, must be tried by a special court within a fixed time-frame.

Q5. The Supreme Court Bench that on 25 February 2026 stayed the criminal proceedings against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in the ED summons-defiance case was headed by which one of the following?

• A. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
• B. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
• C. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
• D. Justice B. R. Gavai