Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has been denied bail once again in the liquor scam case. On June 25, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, overturned the trial court’s decision and denied Kejriwal’s bail. In response, Aam Aadmi Party supporters are claiming a conflict of interest, alleging that Anurag Jain, who supposedly appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, is the brother of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, who issued the ruling.
Islamist handle Delhiite claimed on X, ‘Delhi High Court judge Sudhir Jain, who swiftly stayed Arvind Kejriwal’s bail, has a brother, Anurag Jain, serving as a lawyer on the ED panel. This connection raises serious concerns about the impartiality of our judiciary. The Supreme Court must intervene to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.’
🚨 SHOCKING IF TRUE 🚨
— زماں (@Delhiite_) June 29, 2024
Delhi High Court judge Sudhir Jain, who swiftly stayed Arvind Kejriwal's bail, has a brother, Anurag Jain, serving as a lawyer on the ED panel. This connection raises serious concerns about the impartiality of our judiciary.
The Supreme Court must… pic.twitter.com/RnDmvrJnmd
Aam Aadmi Party Supporter Dr Ranjan asserted, ‘Delhi High Court Judge Sudhir Jain stayed CM Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail, even before BAIL Order was published by Rouse Avenue Court. BJP’s Salt-Pepper; His brother: Anurag Jain, was on the lawyer panel representing ED !? How is this possible? Conflict of Interest?’
🚨 Big Expose
— Dr Ranjan (@AAPforNewIndia) June 29, 2024
Delhi High Court Judge Sudhir Jain stayed CM Arvind Kejriwal's Bail, even before BAIL Order was published by Rouse Avenue Court.
BJP's Salt-Pepper;
His brother: Anurag Jain, was on the lawyer panel representing ED !?
How is this possible?
Conflict of Interest? pic.twitter.com/kuUPG5lc3b
Aap supporter Chayan wrote, ‘Judge Sudhir Jain, who stayed Arvind Kejriwal’s bail even before the order came, has a brother Anurag Jain on the ED’s lawyer panel. This is a clear conflict of interest, especially in the high court of our nation’s capital.’
Judge Sudhir Jain, who stayed Arvind Kejriwal's bail even before the order came, has a brother Anurag Jain on the ED's lawyer panel. 😯
— चयन 🇮🇳 (@Tweet2Chayan) June 30, 2024
This is a clear conflict of interest, especially in the high court of our nation’s capital. 👨⚖️ pic.twitter.com/Mi8oSAk7MK
Piku claimed, ‘Justice Sudhir Jain of the High Court, who promptly denied bail to Kejriwal, has a relative, Anurag Jain, who is a lawyer representing ED. How is this not a conflict of interest?’
Shocking 😶
— Piku (@RisingPiku) June 29, 2024
Justice Sudhir Jain of the High Court, who promptly denied bail to Kejriwal, has a relative, Anurag Jain, who is a lawyer representing ED. How is this not a conflict of interest? pic.twitter.com/JT2seVgxGf
Mahua Moitra Fans stated, ‘Hope Supreme Court is watching such mockery of Judiciary & justice system. Recently Delhi High Court Judge #SudhirJain stayed CM @ArvindKejriwal’s Bail, even before BAIL Order was published by Rouse Avenue Court (Lower court). Interestingly, His brother #AnuragJain was one of the lawyer panel representing ED against Kejriwal. Isn’t this Conflict of Interest?’
Hope Supreme Court is watching such mockery of Judiciary & justice system.
— Mahua Moitra Fans (@MahuaMoitraFans) June 29, 2024
Recently Delhi High Court Judge #SudhirJain stayed CM @ArvindKejriwal's Bail, even before BAIL Order was published by Rouse Avenue Court (Lower court).
Interestingly, His brother #AnuragJain was one of… pic.twitter.com/HH7hzc0DHd
Islamist Ashraf Hussain wrote, ‘Is Anurag Jain, brother of Delhi High Court judge Sudhir Jain, who decided to suspend Arvind Kejriwal’s bail, a lawyer on the ED panel? Will this not raise questions on the impartiality of the judiciary?’
क्या अरविंद केजरीवाल कि ज़मानत स्थगित करने का फैसला करने वाले दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के जज सुधीर जैन जी के भाई अनुराग जैन ईडी के पैनल में वकील हैं? क्या इससे न्यायपालिका की निष्पक्षता पर सवाल नहीं खड़े होंगे? pic.twitter.com/ak33XleUlc
— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) June 30, 2024
Additionally, Anahat Sagar, Chirag Patel, Shams Tabrez Qasmi, Nagrik, Wasim Akram Tyagi, Bittu Sharma, and Lisa Sebastian shared this information on X.
Also Read: YouTube Influencer is Not Offering Non-Veg With Biryani Rice, But Potato & Paneer to Lord Krishna
Fact Check
We began our investigation by examining the recent order passed by the Delhi High Court regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s bail petition. On June 21, after a trial court in Delhi granted bail to Kejriwal, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) appealed to the Delhi High Court, which stayed the trial court’s bail order. Ultimately, on June 25, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of the Delhi High Court ultimately denied Kejriwal’s bail.
From the Delhi High Court website, we obtained the judgment copy and the list of lawyers who appeared for both parties. Representing the ED were ASG S. V. Raju, along with Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, and Mr. Anam Venkatesh, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Abhi Priya, Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Ms. Shweta Desai, Ms. Bhanupriya, AD, Mr. S. K. Sharma, AD/IO, and Mr. Gaurav Saini. Representing Arvind Kejriwal were Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd Irshad, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Kaustubh Sandhu, Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Ms. Nikita Gill, and Mr. Rajat Jain.
The above information clearly states that no lawyer named Anurag Kumar Jain was a petitioner on the Enforcement Directorate’s side during Arvind Kejriwal’s bail hearing in the Delhi High Court.
Additionally, our investigation advanced to reviewing another order by the Delhi High Court related to the Liquor Policy ED case.
On April 22nd, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Arvind Kejriwal. The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice and Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, ruled against the bail petition filed by law student Karan Pal Singh. In this case, Mr. Karan Pal Singh represented himself as the petitioner, while the respondents, including UNION OF INDIA & ORS., were represented by Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj and Mr. K. Manaswini, Advocates for R3/CBI. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, standing counsel, appeared with Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Irshad, Mr. Tushar Sanna, and Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, Advocates for R4/GNCTD. Additionally, Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, was present with Mr. Talha Abdul Rehman, Mr. Hrishikesh Kumar, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Adnan Bhat, and Mr. Sahat Karan Singh, Advocates for R-5.
We also discovered another case from April 9, 2024, where the Delhi High Court again denied bail to Arvind Kejriwal. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered this judgment. Representing Arvind Kejriwal were Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, and Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocates, along with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mr. Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Kaustubh Khanna, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Shailesh Chauhan, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Mehul Prasad, Ms. Priyanka Sarda, Ms. Sheenu Priya, and Ms. Princy Sharma, Advocates. For the Directorate of Enforcement, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG, appeared with Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Hitarth Raja, Ms. Abhipriya Rai, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Vivek Gaurav, Mr. Agrimaa Singh, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, and Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Advocates for ED, along with Ms. Bhanupriya Meena, DD, Mr. Gaurav Saini, ALA, and Mr. S.K. Sharma.
Additionally, on March 21, the Delhi High Court refused to grant interim protection from coercive action to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal concerning the Enforcement Directorate summonses in the Delhi excise policy case. Unfortunately, we could not retrieve the case details from the Delhi High Court website.
In conclusion, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain presided over only one bail hearing for Arvind Kejriwal, and in no bail hearings did advocate Anurag Jain appear for the Enforcement Directorate. We found no evidence of a relationship between Justice Jain and Advocate Jain, indicating no conflict of interest.
