Underlining the need to protect a judge’s reputation, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside the transfer of a case from a trial court judge who was alleged to have a “bias” against granting bail in money laundering cases. On April 10, after a virtual hearing was concluded, judge Jagdish Kumar of the Rouse Avenue Court is alleged to have said “lene do datein, ED matters me kaunsi bail hoti hai” (let them seek an adjournment, bail is not granted in ED cases..
.). The petitioner had then moved an application before the District and Sessions Judge, seeking transfer of the case to a new judge, which was allowed.
In a 41-page ruling, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that there “were no sufficient reasons” to transfer the case since Judge Kumar was not heard by the district judge. Advertisement “The reputation of a judge is an important aspect of the judiciary’s credibility and the public’s trust in the legal system. The reputation of a judge is one of his most vital assets, painstakingly built over years of dedicated service.
It is of utmost importance for a judge to guard this reputation as judges too, like all other individuals, have a right to protect their reputation,” the HC stated. While the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) sets a high bar for granting bail, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in his speeches has flagged the refrain that trial courts are reluctant to grant bail. “It has to be ensured that judges are treated with the same.