Lawyers Raise Concerns Over 'Unprecedented Practices' in Kejriwal Bail Hearing

Conflict of Interest and Questionable Judicial Conduct Highlighted

A delegation of 150 lawyers from the Delhi High Court and District Courts has written to the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud , expressing concerns over what they describe as "unprecedented practices" in the Delhi High Court and District Courts during the bail hearing of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal .

The lawyers' delegation highlighted a conflict of interest involving Justice Sudhir KumarJain , who stayed the bail order of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal . They pointed out that Justice Jain 's brother, Anurag Jain , serves as a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the agency that had arrested Kejriwal in a case related to the Delhi excise policy.

"Hon'ble Justice Sudhir KumarJain should have recused himself from the proceedings since his real brother is a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate. This clear conflict of interest was never declared by Hon'ble Justice Sudhir KumarJain ," the letter claimed.

The representation also includes the signature of advocate Sanjeev Nasiar , the head of the Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) legal cell.

Unprecedented Judicial Conduct

The lawyers further stated that Justice Jain permitted the ED's challenge to Mr. Kejriwal 's bail to be listed and ordered a stay on the execution of the bail bond even before the original bail order was officially uploaded. "Something like this has never been seen in the history of the Indian judiciary before this," the lawyers said.

The delegation also highlighted an internal administrative order issued by the District Judge of Rouse Avenue Court directing Vacation Courts, which function during the summer break, to refrain from issuing final orders and only to issue notices for regular courts after the vacation.

This administrative order, coming soon after the bail granted to Mr. Kejriwal by a Vacation Court of Additional Session Judge Nyaya Bindu, has been questioned by the lawyers for undermining the purpose of Vacation Courts, which are intended to handle urgent matters even during court vacations.

"Such an order is administratively and procedurally irregular, but also a travesty of justice. The entire purpose of Vacation Courts is that there are urgent matter that require attention even during vacations," the lawyer said.

Timing of the Order Questioned

The lawyers also questioned the timing of the administrative order, suggesting that it may have been issued in response to the bail granted to Kejriwal by the Vacation Court.

"If such an administrative order is issued, then it defeats the very purpose of gaving vacation benches. The timing of the order also raised the question as to whether it was passed after the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ," the letter read.

The lawyers argued that the order is a "direct violation of the spirit of the statements repeatedly made by your good self asking trial courts to make speedy decisions, so as to not clog higher courts."

They added, "However, giving directions to Vacation Courts not to take decisions is deliberately slowing down the pace of decision-making by courts. 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 lawyers wrote.

The concerns raised by the lawyers highlight the importance of judicial independence, ethical conduct, and the need for a fair and transparent judicial process, especially in high-profile cases with significant political implications.