Jain to HC: ED can’t browbeat judge to seek transfer of case

New Delhi Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on Wednesday contended before the Delhi high court that “uncommon species are ruling the country” and he is being denied a fair trial by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as the central probe agency is seeking to transfer a money laundering case in which he is the main accused to a new judge

New Delhi Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator and Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on Wednesday contended before the Delhi high court that “uncommon species are ruling the country” and he is being denied a fair trial by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as the central probe agency is seeking to transfer a money laundering case in which he is the main accused to a new judge.

New Delhi, India - October 10, 2020: Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Kumar Jain speaks during a press conference, at Civil Lines in New Delhi, India, on Saturday, October 10, 2020. (Photo by Amal KS/ Hindustan Times) (Amal KS/HT PHOTO)

Contending that even dreaded terrorist Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial, Jain, through senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Rahul Mehra, said the ED cannot be allowed to “brow beat a judge” and seek transfer of the case on the basis of a “bias” without any basis as it would lead to “anarchy” and unscrupulous litigants would come to the court seeking transfers.

“The impact of the transfer will be that judges would think that every time ED asks something and I don’t give it, ED will seek transfer. It will have a chilling effect. Judges will be afraid to pass orders. It will bring anarchy if ED is allowed to do this,” senior counsel Sibal argued.

The court after hearing the arguments, listed the matter for further hearing on October 1.

The ED had arrested Jain and fellow accused Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain in a money laundering case based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) first information report (FIR) lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Jain, currently in judicial custody, is accused of having laundered money through four companies linked to him.

Jain and his co-accused sought to set aside the trial court order of last week transferring the case from special judge Geetanjali Goel to special judge Vikas Dhull.

Saying that institutions need to be protected, Jain through his lawyers said that judiciary should say such tactics are unacceptable. Mehra contended there was no occasion to cast aspersions on the judge when the allegations of manipulation were in relation to the jail and Lok Nayak hospital staff, and insisted cost should be imposed on ED for the “worst kind of forum shopping and bench hunting”.

“We have to protect our institutions and ED cannot be allowed to pick and choose. Even Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial. Surely, I am not worse than that,” he said.

The counsel argued that the bias “suddenly dawned” on the agency after special judge Goel did not agree at that stage to its request for constituting an independent board for Jain’s medical examination.

“Your lordship will have to decide whether the (special court) judge is to be protected or the ED is to be protected. It is time for the judiciary to stand up and say these kinds of tactics cannot be accepted. You cannot allege bias against a judge,” the senior lawyer told Justice Yogesh Khanna.

“If ED says something it has to be accepted (otherwise) it is bias. Judge can’t be browbeaten like this,” Sibal added.

Additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for ED, argued the district court order warrants no interference as in spite of sufficiently demonstrating that the jail officials as well as the hospital doctors were “managed” and were assisting the minister in feigning sickness for the purpose of interim bail, the special judge looked the other way.

He, however, clarified the agency was not casting any aspersions on the judge as it was nobody’s case that bias has been proved , a submission vehemently opposed by Jain’s counsel.

“We demonstrated live to (special) court (that Jain was feigning sickness), yet the court was not alive to the situation. Instead of allowing evaluation (by an independent hospital), the (special) judge allowed him to not travel,” said the ASG, as he contended that high dignitaries and politicians “take advantage of their clout”.