[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain’s plea challenging the order of a Delhi court allowing the transfer of hearing in the money laundering case against him from one judge to another.
On September 23, Principal District and Sessions Judge (Rouse Avenue Courts) Vinay Kumar Gupta had allowed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) transfer petition in the case against Jain. The case was transferred from the court of Special Judge Geetanjli Goel to that of Special Judge Vikas Dhull.
A single-judge bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna held on Saturday that “the question is not of an integrity or uprightness of the judge; or of the authorities over which the petitioner once had jurisdiction” but as noted by the principal district and sessions judge in the impugned order, “is of an ‘apprehension in the mind of a party’”.
The court further observed that such an apprehension “is to be seen from the angle of a party and not of a judge”, referring to a 1987 judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v Union of India. The apex court had held that as to the tests of the likelihood of bias, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party.
“The argument to the contrary is rather not relevant. The facts show the department did not merely harbour such apprehension but rather had acted upon it by rushing to this court…hence it cannot be said to be flimsy or not reasonable,” Justice Khanna observed.
The high court observed that the question is not if there was any alleged violation of the Delhi Jail Manual and Rules, but of Jain’s alleged stature/influence to “allegedly seek benefit under such rules”. The court further held that the apprehensions raised by the ED “were not at a belated stage as the request for an independent evaluation were consistently made and rather the respondent rushed to this court in Crl.MC. No.3401/2022…”.
Dismissing Jain’s petition, the court held that all these facts were considered by the principal district and sessions judge and that it cannot be said the transfer order suffers from any “illegality or need any interference”.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for Jain along with advocate Rahul Mehra, had argued that the impugned order is “bad in law” and needs to be set aside as to date, not even a single order has been passed in favour of Jain. “It is argued it could not have been done at the mere asking of an investigating agency since it was incumbent upon the court to examine the apprehension expressed qua conduct of trial is reasonable and such powers need to be exercised in exceptional circumstances,” the court observed.
Sibal had argued that such apprehension was never expressed at an initial stage of the hearing either during “pendency of the interim bail application” or when the ED filed its reply to the regular bail application and it is not known what transpired within two days thereafter that the respondent moved an application for transfer of the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, had referred to Supreme Court judgments that held that a person seeking transfer is not required to “demonstrate the justice will inevitably fail and he needs to only explain the circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged”.
“It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice – justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done,” Raju had submitted on Wednesday. He further said the ED’s case is that Jain is an influential person and he had portfolios of health, and jail and that the jail authorities had shifted him first to GB Pant Hospital and then to LNJP Hospital, both under the Delhi government, and Jain could have easily “rigged” his medical report.
[ad_2]
Source link