More than 150 lawyers write to CJI, raise ‘conflict of interest’ issue against Delhi High Court judge for hearing ED's plea against Kejriwal

New Delhi, July 5

More than 150 lawyers have written to CJI DY Chandrachud raising “conflict of interest” issue against Delhi High Court Judge Sudhir Kumar Jain who heard the Enforcement Directorate’s appeal against bail given to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case, saying Justice Jain’s real brother was an ED counsel.

“Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain should have rescued himself from the proceedings since his real brother Anurag Jain is a counsel for the ED. This clear conflict of interest was never declared,” read the representation signed by 157 lawyers.

However, sources said advocate Anurag Jain was not handling any money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam.

The representation, which also bears the signature of AAP Legal Cell chief  Sanjeev Nasiar, expressed concern over a purported internal communication from a district judge here asking vacation judges of trial courts to not pass a final order in pending cases during a court recess, calling it “unprecedented”.

Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu had granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on June 20 in a money-laundering case linked to the excise policy scam. The bail order was later stayed by the Delhi High Court on the 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,” they said.

Additional Sessions Judge Bindu had granted bail to Kejriwal while quoting the CJI that the trial courts needed to make speedy and bold decisions so that the 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 read.

On the urgent listing, hearing and stay of the trial court’s bail order by the High Court, the lawyers said, “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 said the purported internal administrative communication asking vacation judges of trial courts to not pass any substantive order has defeated the purpose of forming vacation benches and also violated the spirit of statements of the CJI asking trial courts to make speedy decisions.

“As a consequence, many lawyers who had cases listed in 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 read.