Justice Sheel Nagu appointed Acting Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (where is the question of bail in ED matters?)" [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ajay S Mittal].
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that judges do not have public relations (PR) people to speak on their behalf and counter the nonsense that is spoken against them.
“I want someone to talk about the rights of the judges also...This is a new issue. Judges don’t have PR offices that someone will be speak for them about whatever nonsense is spoken about them,” Justice Sharma remarked.
The Court said that transferring a case from a judge has an effect on that judge as well.
“Being a judge for 32 years…people have been saying so many things against me after I passed orders in the last few weeks...Sab kuchh bola bhi to nahi sakte hain na (We cannot say everything here)...These orders [of transfer] get published everywhere. What effect does it have on the judge?” the Court remarked.
Justice Sharma clarified that she had not made up her mind and will pass a detailed order.
The case in question was transferred from Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar. The transfer was done by the District & Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court on May 1 after accused Ajay S Mittal filed a plea for the same.
It was Mittal’s case that his bail plea was listed for hearing before Judge Jagdish Kumar on April 10. On that date, the counsel sought time to prepare for arguments and the matter was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal’s wife (also an accused in the case) was watching the proceedings, and once the counsel left the courtroom, the judge could be heard saying to the court staff, “lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (let them keep taking dates, where is the question of bail in ED cases?)”.
The District Judge allowed the plea and observed that Mittal’s apprehension of the judge's “probable bias” in favour of the ED cannot be said to be misconceived or misplaced.
After the judge was transferred, the ED moved the High Court.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the ED and argued that the case was transferred on a mere affidavit filed by the wife of the accused.
"Ek zarra bhi proof nahi diya hai unhone (They have not given even a speck of proof)," Hossain said.
The ED said that none of the counsel appearing for any party heard the judge’s remark and that the allegations cannot be taken as a gospel truth.
“We were there. The counsel for the other side were also there. No one has supported the allegations. Only on the word of the lady, the matter gets transferred. This will have a deleterious effect. Any person who does not want their matter to be heard by a particular judge will make bald, substantiated allegations and get his matter transferred. It amounts to forum shopping. This is a classic case of forum shopping. They took repeated adjournments before the previous judge,” Hossain said.
He added that the judge from whom the matter has been transferred is a Special Judge posted at Rouse Avenue Court and deals with CBI and ED matters. Such transfer will raise questions on his competence to deal with any ED case, he added.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Mittal and said that the order of transfer is an administrative order. Sethi said that Mittal’s wife heard the remark and has sworn an affidavit to that effect.
“She did not make any allegation earlier. We are not choosing any court. We are not saying please transfer this case to a particular judge,” he said.
The Senior Advocate contended that there is no other way to prove that the judge made the remark.
“This is a very serious issue for us. We have all heard the phrase, justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done.”
Sourcehttps://www.barandbench.com/news/justice-sheel-nagu-acting-chief-justice-madhya-pradesh-high-court