A group of lawyers from the Delhi High Court and district courts has raised serious allegations against Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, who quashed the bail of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case without reading the official order, accusing him of favouritism for his brother, who is a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The lawyers have written to the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighting a conflict of interest in the quashing of Kejriwal's bail by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain. The lawyers pointed out that Justice Jain's brother serves as a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the agency responsible for Kejriwal's arrest in connection with an investigation into Delhi's excise duty policy, according to The Hindu.
This connection, according to the lawyers, presents a clear conflict of interest that was not disclosed by Justice Jain.
Kejriwal was initially arrested by the ED, a financial crimes agency under the control of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government, in March. Following his bail by the Rouse Avenue Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), another federal agency, promptly arrested him.
The trial court that granted Kejriwal's bail had criticized the ED for acting with bias and failing to present sufficient evidence for his continued incarceration.
The lawyers' letter underscores the irregularity of Justice Jain's rapid decision to allow the ED to challenge the bail order and to stay the bail even before the order was officially uploaded. This move is described as unprecedented in the history of the Indian judiciary.
The group highlights an internal administrative order from the District Judge of Rouse Avenue Court, which directed Vacation Courts to refrain from issuing final orders and to only issue notices for regular courts post-vacation. This directive, according to the lawyers, undermines the purpose of Vacation Courts and warrants strong objection.
The inclusion of Aam Aadmi Party’s lead advocate Sanjeev Nasiar among the signatories adds a political dimension to the controversy. The lawyers' plea to the Chief Justice of India calls for a review of Justice Jain's decision, emphasizing the need for impartiality and transparency in judicial proceedings.