Over 150 lawyers have raised the issue of “conflict of interest” by sending a representation to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. They stated that Delhi High Court Judge Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain should have recused himself from hearing the ED’s appeal against the grant of bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case, as his brother is a counsel for the probe agency.
The representation claimed that Justice Jain’s “real brother” Anurag Jain is a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and that “this clear conflict of interest was never declared.” However, sources indicated that lawyer Anurag Jain is not handling any money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam.
Signed by 157 lawyers, the representation said, “Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain should have recused himself from the proceedings since his real brother Anurag Jain is a counsel for the ED. This clear conflict of interest was never declared.” It also expressed concern over a purported internal communication from a district judge asking vacation judges of trial courts to not pass final orders in pending cases during a court recess, calling it “unprecedented.”
The representation is significant as it was sent after vacation judge Niyay Bindu granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on June 20 in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam. The Delhi High Court later stayed the bail order on ED’s appeal.
“We are writing on behalf of the legal fraternity regarding some unprecedented practices being witnessed in the Delhi High Court and the district courts of Delhi,” it stated.
The representation mentioned that Additional Sessions Judge Bindu had granted bail to Kejriwal while quoting the CJI, saying that trial courts needed to make speedy and bold decisions so that superior courts are not clogged with cases.
“However, on the very next day, the ED challenged this order in the Delhi High Court. What makes this challenge extremely irregular is the fact that the challenge was done even before the Rouse Avenue Court order was uploaded (on the website),” the representation noted.
The representation also bears the signature of Sanjeev Nasiar, the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) legal cell.
Highlighting the urgent listing, hearing, and stay of the trial court’s bail order by the high court, the representation stated, “Something like this has never been seen in the history of the Indian judiciary before this and this has raised deep concerns in the mind of the legal fraternity.” It stated that the purported internal administrative communication asking vacation judges of trial courts not to pass any substantive order has defeated the purpose of forming vacation benches and also violated the spirit of statements by the CJI asking trial courts to make speedy decisions.
“As a consequence, many lawyers who had cases listed during the vacation have not been able to have final disposal of their matters. We, as representatives of the lawyers’ community, would like to lodge a very strong objection against such an administrative order,” the representation concluded.
On July 2, lawyers affiliated with the Delhi Lawyers’ Association met a district judge and objected to the purported internal communication.
District courts in Delhi were closed for summer vacations from June 10 to June 29. Judicial officers rotate to serve as vacation judges during vacations.
