New Delhi | Raising the issue of "conflict of interest," more than 150 lawyers on Thursday sent a representation to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, saying the Delhi High Court Judge Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain should have recused himself from hearing ED's appeal against grant of bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case as his brother is a counsel for the probe agency.
The representation claimed that Justice Jain's "real brother" Anurag Jain is a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and that "this clear conflict of interest was never declared."
However, lawyer Anurag Jain is not handling any money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam, sources said.
The representation signed by 157 lawyers said, "Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain should have rescued himself from the proceedings since his real brother Anurag Jain is a counsel for the ED. This clear conflict of interest was never declared."
It also expressed concern over a purported internal communication from a district judge here asking vacation judges of trial courts to not pass a final order in pending cases during a court recess, calling it "unprecedented".
The representation assumes significance as it was sent in the wake of vacation judge Niyay Bindu granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on June 20 in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam. The bail order was later stayed by the Delhi High Court on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal.
"We are writing on behalf of the legal fraternity regarding some unprecedented practices being witnessed in the Delhi High Court and the district courts of Delhi," it said.
The representation said Additional Sessions Judge Bindu had granted bail to Kejriwal while quoting the CJI that the trial courts needed to make speedy and bold decisions so that the superior courts are not clogged with cases.
"However, on the very next day, the ED challenged this order in the Delhi High Court. What makes this challenge extremely irregular is the fact that the challenge was done even before the Rouse Avenue Court order was uploaded (on the website)," the representation said.
The representation also bears the signature of lawyer Sanjeev Nasiar, the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) legal cell.
Referring to the urgent listing, hearing and stay of the trial court's bail order by the high court, the representation said, "Something like this has never been seen in the history of the Indian judiciary before this and this has raised deep concerns in the mind of the legal fraternity."
It said the purported internal administrative communication asking vacation judges of trial courts to not pass any substantive order has defeated the purpose of forming vacation benches and also violated the spirit of statements of the CJI asking trial courts to make speedy decisions.
"As a consequence, many lawyers who had cases listed in the vacation, have not been able to have final disposal of their matters. We as representatives of the lawyers community would like to lodge a very strong objection against such an administrative order," the representation said.
On July 2, lawyers affiliated to the Delhi Lawyers' Association had met a district judge and objected to the purported internal communication.
District courts in Delhi were closed for summer vacations from June 10 to June 29. Judicial officers take turns to act as vacation judges during vacations.
