E-Paper
‘Easy to make allegations’: CJI Chandrachud on shifting cases from judges
The Supreme Court’s sharp observation came against the backdrop of senior lawyers writing letters on change of benches hearing specific cases
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on Thursday took exception to insinuations over the registry listing select matters before the benches and clarified that a bunch of cases including former Delhi minister Satyendra Jain’s bail request were assigned to a new bench on the request of the judge hearing the case.
The CJI’s observations came hours after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Satyendra Jain, approached the top judge against the registry shifting Jail’s bail plea from a bench comprising justices AS Bopanna and Bela M Trivedi to a bench comprising justices Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
CJI Chandrachud declined to interfere when the request first came up earlier on Thursday, telling Singhvi that if the case was listed before the judge, the judge concerned has to take a call.
The CJI checked the details of the case with the court registry during the lunch break. When the court assembled, the CJI explained to Singhvi that Jain’s bail plea was assigned to a bench led by justice Trivedi after the registry received a communication from justice Bopanna’s office that he was unable to hold court due to illness and that he had released all matters which had been partly heard by him.
“A lot of letters are flung at the registry on why matters are being pulled out from benches. It is easy to make allegations. But the fact is after Diwali break, there was a communication received from the residential office of justice Bopanna requesting all matters heard by him to be de-part heard,” CJI Chandrachud said.
He did not elaborate on the reference to the letters received by the registry. Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan were reported to have written on cases being shifted from one bench to another.
Dave’s letter did not mention any specific case while Bhushan referred to a change of the bench hearing the constitutional challenge to certain provisions in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
On Jain’s case, the CJI said the registry assigned the matter to justice Trivedi on November 21. Since then, the matter was listed on November 24, December 4 and December 11 but it was adjourned on all three dates because Jain objected to the change of bench.
“I am extremely surprised at this, that a particular bench should hear the matter and that a judge should not hear the matter,” the CJI said, adding that there were medical reasons which prompted justice Bopanna to release the matter. “Justice Trivedi will now take a call. This matter had to be heard as it concerns extension of interim bail or else you have to surrender.”
Later in the day, the matter was heard by a bench of justice Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, which extended Jain’s interim bail till January 8.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the only way to deal with “such malicious letters” was to ignore them. “These letters should not be given dignity by being entertained.”
Singhvi said his only concern with a new bench was that he had argued the case for two hours before the justice Bopanna bench on November 6.” The case was directed to be listed before the same bench on November 24 but it came up before a bench headed by justice Trivedi, he said.
The court said, “I had the papers checked up and verified that the matter was first listed before justice Bopanna and justice Trivedi on September 12. Since then, it was listed twice before that bench and the interim bail was continued on each occasion.”
Jain was first granted interim bail on medical grounds on May 26 and his bail has since been extended on numerous occasions.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju who appeared for ED that probed the money laundering charges against Jain, has objected to the extension of bail. On Thursday, Raju underlined that if the case was to be delayed, the interim bail order should be vacated.
Jain approached the top court against the Delhi high court’s April 6 order refusing him bail. In his appeal, Jain said he has been facing depression, has a patch on his lungs after suffering from Covid-19 last year, acute lumbar pain and associated vertigo, degeneration of intervertebral discs and sleep apnea.
Jain has been accused of laundering money through four companies allegedly linked to him and was arrested in May last year. ED, which started investigating the case on the basis of a 2017 case against the Aam Aadmi Party leader registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, attached assets worth ₹4.81 crore belonging to these companies last year.
