The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to transfer the Bhushan Power and Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked, “ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (who gets bail in ED matters?)”
NEW DELHI: The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court recently dismissed a plea seeking to transfer the Bhushan Power and Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked, “ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (who gets bail in ED matters?)”
The Delhi High Court’s observation that such remarks alone do not indicate judicial bias. On June 3, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna noted the High Court’s May 28 opinion, stating that even if Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar made the alleged remark, it does not prove bias.
Judge Kumar’s comments were reviewed before the June 3 order. Considering the High Court’s views and Kumar’s comments, Judge Chandna stated that the expressions used by Kumar could be interpreted in various ways. Consequently, the court dismissed the transfer plea and reassigned the case to Judge Kumar, reversing a May 1 order that had transferred it to another judge.
Judge Chandna’s order noted,
“In view of detailed observations of the order dated 28.05.2024, there is no ground to transfer the matter on account of allegations of bias. Accordingly, the present plea for transfer is dismissed and main case (Case No.26/2023) along with pending bail applications are withdrawn from the court of Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI-05 and is re-assigned to the court of Sh.Jagdish Kumar, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-16 for adjudication and disposal as per law.”
The matter concerns a bail application filed by Ajay S Mittal, an accused in the money laundering case. The controversy began after an April 10 hearing before Judge Kumar, where the counsel requested time to prepare, and the case was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal’s wife, also an accused, allegedly heard the judge remark to court staff, “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.
Ajay Mittal subsequently filed a transfer petition, fearing potential bias from Judge Kumar. The ED opposed the transfer, arguing that Mittal had not demonstrated reasonable apprehensions based on all the facts.
On May 1, Principal District Judge Chandna initially ordered the case to be transferred to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar, noting that Mittal’s concerns about probable bias were not unfounded. However, this decision was challenged by the ED before the High Court.
On May 28, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the High Court ruled that transferring the case was unnecessary as the judge’s comment did not necessarily show bias in favor of the ED. The High Court also stated that conversations between judges and court staff are confidential.
Following this ruling, the district court dismissed Ajay Mittal’s transfer plea and reassigned the case to Judge Kumar.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Singh, along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal and Prakriti Anand, represented Ajay S Mittal. Advocates Zoheb Hossain, NK Matta, Simon Benjamin, Manish Jain, Ishaan Baisla, and Chandveer Shyoran represented the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: Ajay S Mittal v Directorate of Enforcement
