Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has taken a firm stand by refusing to adjourn the hearing on the bail plea of AAP leader Satyendar Kumar Jain, which is listed before a bench headed by Justice Bela M Trivedi. This decision comes amidst requests for postponement of the hearing, which has been a subject of substantial arguments in the past.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Jain, approached the bench led by CJI Chandrachud with a plea to defer the hearing. Singhvi pointed out that the case was initially heard for over two and a half hours by a bench comprising Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Trivedi. With Justice Bopanna currently not a part of the bench, Singhvi requested,
“We wish to seek a deferment. If you (the CJI) can kindly see the case papers once.”
However, CJI Chandrachud responded firmly, emphasizing the autonomy of the bench handling the case. He stated,
“I will not control what the judge concerned is doing in the matter listed before her. The judge who has the case will decide. I cannot. I cannot take a call.”
This response underscores the principle of judicial independence and the respect for the discretion of individual judges in handling their cases.
Jain, who is currently on interim bail on health grounds, was initially granted this relief by the Supreme Court on May 26 for six weeks, with extensions following thereafter. His arrest in May 2022 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was in connection with a money laundering case. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initially filed a case against Jain under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that he had acquired movable properties between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for. The ED’s case further alleged that companies beneficially owned and controlled by Jain received approximately ₹4.81 crore from shell companies through a hawala route.
The High Court’s decision to deny bail was based on the assessment that Jain, being an influential person, did not meet the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This led to the filing of an appeal in the Supreme Court, now scheduled for a hearing before the bench comprising Justice Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
The case of Satyendar Jain has been a focal point in discussions about the legal processes in high-profile corruption and money laundering cases. The Supreme Court’s handling of this matter, particularly in terms of bail considerations, is being closely observed for its potential implications on the judicial approach to similar cases in the future.
