Delhi minister Satyendra Jain in HC as ED case goes to another judge

TNN / Updated: Sep 24, 2022, 12:32 IST

Share

AA

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

Observing that the special judge hearing the case was an "upright officer" and yet circumstances may raise "apprehension of probable bias", a Delhi court on Friday transferred the proceedings of the money-laundering case of Delhi minister Satyendra Jain to another judge, Vikas Dhull, reports Vineet Upadhyay.

Delhi minister Satyendra Jain in HC as ED case goes to another judge

Delhi minister Satyendar Jain. (File image)

NEW DELHI: Observing that the special judge hearing the case was an "upright officer" and yet circumstances may raise "apprehension of probable bias", a Delhi court on Friday transferred the proceedings of the money-laundering case of Delhi minister Satyendra Jain to another judge, Vikas Dhull, reports Vineet Upadhyay.
Allowing the Enforcement Directorate's plea seeking transfer of the case on the ground of bias, district judge Vinay Kumar Gupta said that the ED's plea can't be judged on the claim that it is showing "hypersensitivity" as alleged by Jain, whose bail plea was at the far end of the hearing when the probe agency sought transfer of the case.Soon after, Jain moved high court against the transfer.
Reasonable Fears Of Probable Bias: Court
Within hours of the order transferring the ED's case to another judge, Vikas Dhull, minister Satyendar Jain's counsel rushed to the Delhi high court which agreed to list the challenge to the transfer of the case on Monday. The plea was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

On the other hand, Dhull commenced hearing on Friday itself at 2.30pm and scheduled the next hearing on September 27.
Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Jain, said he was challenging the transfer of matter to another judge as it was illegal. As the bench sought to know what the urgency was, the senior counsel said the trial court has kept it for hearing on Friday itself and the matter will be heard on a day-to-day basis. Any delay will affect the challenge, he added.

In his order, the district judge noted that "the petitioner's ground has to be tested on the touchstone, not of hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party, (but) rather on a more substantial and more compelling...point of view of public justice and its attendant environment. And further that the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where a case should be tried."
The court observed in its order that although special judge Geetanjali Goel, who was hearing the matter, is a "very upright officer, all the circumstances taken together are sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension" of probable bias. It added that the proceeding before the special judge has "given rise to a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of bias in the mind of the petitioner (ED) about impartial hearing in the matter".
The court recorded the submissions of the ED as well as the minister. The ED in its application for transfer of the case had raised questions about the medical reports of the minister and requested his medical examination at other medical institutions, including Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Safdarjung Hospital and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, given the minister's influence over the state government-run hospitals' staff.
Additional solicitor general SV Raju had alleged bias on the part of the judge stating that the judge refused to consider on record documents which indicated that the minister may have influenced the jail and hospital staff, including doctors, to provide him with documents for his bail plea.
The plea pointed out that the Delhi high court had ordered in July that medical reports of the minister from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital were not to be considered following which Jain had withdrawn his bail application. Raju submitted that there was a grave likelihood and a reason to believe that the issues have been "premeditated" following which the ED had to move an application for transfer of the case to some other court.
The ED pointed out that Jain still holds a position in the state cabinet of Delhi without a portfolio and hence it cannot be said that he is not a minister anymore.
Jain's counsel submitted in the court that because hearing of the bail application has already been going on for seven to eight hours between August 20 and September 13, 2022, transfer of the case at this juncture "would amount to great miscarriage of justice and delay the decision in the matter".
Opposing the plea of the lawyer for the minister and two others, Raju submitted that the minister has faked illness and the hospital and prison staff being under his influence helped him submit false reports. The hospital staff also allowed the minister's wife to stay with him in the hospital from June 20 to July 1, 2022 in violation of the rules and guidelines.

End of Article

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA