Kejriwal Bail Hearing: Lawyers’ Delegation Writes to CJI Over ‘Unprecedented Practices’ in Courts

On July 4, 2024, a delegation of 150 lawyers from the Delhi High Court and District Courts wrote to the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, expressing concerns over what they termed as “unprecedented practices” in the Delhi High Court and District Courts.

Historical Context:

The Indian judiciary has a long-standing tradition of maintaining impartiality and transparency. Any perceived conflict of interest or deviation from established judicial practices can undermine public trust in the legal system. The current situation involving Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail hearing has brought these issues to the forefront, highlighting the importance of judicial integrity.

Key Concerns Raised:

1. Conflict of Interest:

   • The delegation pointed out a conflict of interest involving Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, who stayed the bail order of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Justice Jain’s brother, Anurag Jain, serves as a counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
   • The lawyers argued that Justice Jain should have recused himself from the proceedings due to this conflict of interest, which was not declared.

2. Procedural Irregularities:

   • The lawyers noted that Justice Jain allowed 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. This, they claimed, is unprecedented in the history of the Indian judiciary.

3. Administrative Orders:

   • An internal administrative order issued by the District Judge of Rouse Avenue Court directed Vacation Courts to refrain from issuing final orders and only to issue notices for regular courts after the vacation.
   • This order came soon after the bail was granted to Mr. Kejriwal by a Vacation Court of Additional Session Judge Nyaya Bindu. The lawyers questioned the timing and purpose of this order, arguing that it undermines the function of Vacation Courts, which are meant to handle urgent matters during court vacations.

4. Impact on Judicial Efficiency:

   • The lawyers argued that the administrative order contradicts the spirit of statements made by the Chief Justice of India, urging trial courts to make speedy decisions to avoid clogging higher courts.
   • They claimed that the order deliberately slows down the pace of decision-making, affecting many lawyers and their clients who had cases listed during the vacation period.

Summary in Bullet Points:

• Delegation of 150 lawyers from Delhi High Court and District Courts wrote to CJI D.Y. Chandrachud.
• Conflict of interest: Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain stayed Kejriwal’s bail order; his brother is a counsel for the ED.
• Procedural irregularities: Stay on bail bond execution before the original order was uploaded.
• Administrative order: Directed Vacation Courts to refrain from issuing final orders, questioned for undermining their purpose.
• Impact on judicial efficiency: Order contradicts CJI’s call for speedy decisions, slowing down decision-making.
• Lawyers’ objection: Strong objection lodged against the administrative order, citing it as a travesty of justice.

This summary provides a comprehensive overview of the concerns raised by the lawyers’ delegation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and efficiency.