Enforcement Directorate now rules the country; judiciary has to stand up to protect a judge: Satyendar Jain to Delhi High Court

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has become an "uncommon being" which now rules the country and the judiciary has to stand up to protect a judge against whom aspersions are being cast, Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Jain and argued that it is high time that the judiciary stands up and says that these kinds of tactics can’t be used.“You have to decide whether in this case it is the judge who needs to be protected or the ED… Judges can’t be browbeaten like this,” he said..The submissions were made before single-judge Justice Yogesh Khanna in a plea by Jain challenging an order of Rouse Avenue Court transferring proceedings of his bail matter in a money laundering case from one judge to another upon ED's request..Jain approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed by Principal District and Sessions Court Vinay Kumar Gupta of the Rouse Avenue court allowing ED’s plea for transfer of Jain's bail hearing from judge Geejanjali Goel to judge Vikas Dhull.Special Judge Geetanjli Goel had been hearing submissions in Jain’s bail plea and the matter was in its final leg, when the ED sought transfer of the matter alleging bias on the part of the judge.This was allowed by Rouse Avenue court prompting the present plea before the High Court..Sibal argued that till September 15, the ED had not even raised the issue of these aspersions against the judge and it was only on this date that the “Eureka dawned upon them” and they sought transfer. “We live in different times now. New principles are being evolved. This is the new facet of criminal jurisprudence that they are evolving,” he said..Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra also appeared for Jain and stated that even even 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial in India and he is sure that Jain is not worse than him. .Mehra said that it is perhaps the first time that the prosecuting agency is alleging bias against a judge and seeking transfer of case.“What kind of precedent are we setting? The message that will go is that even if you ask a single question then we (ED) will cast aspersions on you and we will ensure that the case is transferred from you. This will have a chilling effect on the entire system,” Mehra said..Both the senior counsel also argued that if the ED’s allegations against the Tihar Jail officials and Delhi government hospitals doctors are to believed then who would have faith in the AIIMS, Safdarjung or any other institution which are under the Central government. “Hospitals could be managed? What are they saying? What is going on in this country? Isn’t AIIMS under the Centre's control? Is this a reason for a prosecuting agency like ED to move the court.”.Quoting the District Judge’s order allowing transfer of the matter, Sibal said that the judge has held that ED has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction.“This is a gem. What is this principle? Do they have access to the judge? I hope not. I hope the situation has not come to this,” he said. If the order allowing transfer of case is allowed it will bring in anarchy, Sibal concluded..However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for ED, argued that apprehension of bias against the judge was not in their mind from the very beginning but it was triggered following certain events. “They say not a single order was passed against ED. This is wrong. I challenged one of those orders in this court and the order was stayed,” Raju said. .The ED said that Jain is a very influential person who was a minister in the Delhi government and held portfolios of Jail and Health.“There was a connivance of Tihar Jail authorities. He (Jain) was examined by Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and found fit. On the same day Jail authorities painted him otherwise. It is well known that people who are influential are able to somehow manage hospital stays instead of being in jail.”If my application seeking his independent medical check-up from a hospital like AIIMS or Safdarjung were to be decided, this connivance would have come to the fore but the judge did not allow it, Raju said. “The special treatment being given to him was demonstrated to the court, yet the court did not decide against it.” .Raju further argued that the last incident which fortified their belief in the bias was the fact that even though they had replied to all the arguments in the bail hearing, during rejoinder the judge said that I had not dealt with some of the submissions. “It is only when the third incident took place and we examined cumulatively and holistically that we decided that we should move for transfer,” he said. He added,“The argument that we are trying to delay the proceedings is a bogey created by them for ulterior motives… The transfer court is also a court of law. They could have proceeded in that court and the bail order would have been out by today.”.After hearing the arguments, Justice Yogesh Khanna said that he will keep the matter for clarification on Saturday and if there are none, orders will be passed..Read more about the Rouse Avenue court order here..Judge upright but transferring case due to "probable bias": Why Delhi court transferred Satyendar Jain bail plea to another judge