The Delhi High Court Today (May 22nd) reserved its verdict on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked “ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (where is the question of bail in ED matters?)”. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the impact such remarks and subsequent case transfers have on judges
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked,
“ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (where is the question of bail in ED matters?).”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the impact such remarks and subsequent case transfers have on judges, who do not have public relations representatives to defend them against negative comments.
“I want someone to talk about the rights of the judges also…This is a new issue. Judges don’t have PR offices that someone will speak for them about whatever nonsense is spoken about them,”
-Justice Sharma remarked.
The court noted the personal and professional repercussions of transferring a case from a judge.
“Being a judge for 32 years…people have been saying so many things against me after I passed orders in the last few weeks…Sab kuchh bola bhi to nahi sakte hain na (We cannot say everything here)…These orders [of transfer] get published everywhere. What effect does it have on the judge?”
-Justice Sharma stated, clarifying that she had not yet made a decision and would issue a detailed order.
The case was transferred from Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar by the District & Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court on May 1, following a plea from accused Ajay S Mittal. Mittal’s wife, who is also an accused in the case, claimed to have overheard Judge Jagdish Kumar making the contentious remark to court staff.
Mittal argued that his bail plea, scheduled for April 10, was adjourned to April 25 after his counsel requested more time to prepare. His wife allegedly heard the judge remark,
“lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (let them keep taking dates, where is the question of bail in ED cases?)”
-after the counsel left the courtroom. The District Judge approved the transfer, noting that Mittal’s concern about potential bias was neither misconceived nor misplaced.
Following the transfer, the ED moved the High Court. Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that the case was transferred based solely on an affidavit filed by the accused’s wife, with no concrete proof to support the allegation.
“Ek zarra bhi proof nahi diya hai unhone (They have not given even a speck of proof),”
–Hossain asserted.
Hossain contended that none of the counsel present heard the judge’s alleged remark and that the allegations should not be accepted as truth without substantiation.
“We were there. The counsel for the other side were also there. No one has supported the allegations. Only on the word of the lady, the matter gets transferred. This will have a deleterious effect. Any person who does not want their matter to be heard by a particular judge will make bald, unsubstantiated allegations and get his matter transferred. It amounts to forum shopping. This is a classic case of forum shopping. They took repeated adjournments before the previous judge,”
-Hossain said.
He further argued that the judge from whom the case was transferred is a Special Judge at Rouse Avenue Court, dealing with CBI and ED matters. Such a transfer, he suggested, would cast doubt on the judge’s competence to handle any ED case.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Mittal, countered that the transfer order was an administrative decision. Sethi noted that Mittal’s wife had sworn an affidavit regarding the judge’s remark, which she heard directly.
“She did not make any allegation earlier. We are not choosing any court. We are not saying please transfer this case to a particular judge,”
-Sethi maintained.
Sethi contended that there was no other way to prove the judge made the remark, emphasizing the gravity of the situation for the defense.
“This is a very serious issue for us. We have all heard the phrase, justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done.”
Justice Sharma’s reserved judgment will address the complex issues of judicial integrity, case management, and the implications of administrative transfers within the judiciary.
CASE TITLE:
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ajay S Mittal.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
