It's very easy to hurl allegations, says anguished CJI Chandrachud

"It is very easy to fling allegations and letters," an anguished Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said on Thursday while clarifying that the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a money laundering case was listed before a bench headed by Justice Bela M Trivedi as Justice A S Bopanna was unavailable due to illness.

Justice Chandrachud made the remark in the context of an unsavoury row that has erupted in the top court after two senior members of the bar -- Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan -- wrote separate letters to him voicing their angst over "certain happenings" in the listing of cases and their reallocation to benches other than those that were supposed to hear them.

Earlier in the day, the CJI refused to allow the prayer made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Jain, to adjourn the hearing of the former Delhi minister's petition by a bench headed by Justice Trivedi, saying the judge concerned will take the decision.

"It is very easy to fling allegations and letters. There is a communication from the office of Justice (A S) Bopanna. Due to medical reasons, he did not resume duties after Diwali. He (Justice Bopanna) stated that all matters which were heard by him should not be kept as part-heard.

"Therefore this matter (bail plea of Jain) was assigned to Justice Trivedi who had last heard the matter. The reason why Justice Trivedi has to hear the matter is because there is an application for an extension of interim bail. I thought I would clarify it," the CJI said.

Justice Chandrachud expressed surprise and said it was strange on the part of a member of the bar to say that "I want this particular judge".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was there inside the courtroom, said the only way to deal with such "malicious" letters is to ignore them and not ”dignify” them with a response.

In the afternoon, the CJI referred to certain past orders of the bench comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Trivedi to drive home the point that it was Justice Bopanna who wanted Jain's case to be not treated as a part-heard matter.

"The matter was ’de part heard' on the instructions of Justice AS Bopanna. I am saying that any member of the bar saying this particular judge should hear my case and no other judge... this cannot be so. Justice Bopanna had to proceed on medical leave...," he said.

In the forenoon, Singhvi said the proposed hearing on Jain's plea by the Justice Trivedi-led bench be deferred.

Singhvi said a bench of Justice Bopanna and Justice Trivedi had heard substantial arguments in the case and now the matter is listed before the bench of which Justice Bopanna is not a part.

"We wish to seek a deferment. If you (the CJI) can kindly see the case papers once," the senior lawyer requested Justice Chandrachud.

"I will not control what the judge concerned is doing in the matter listed before her. The judge who has the case will decide. I cannot. I cannot take a call," the CJI said, responding to Singhvi.

Jain, who had moved the top court for bail, is currently on interim bail on health grounds. Later in the day, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma extented Jain's interim bail till January 8 after noting that he fractured his leg on December 9.

The top court had on May 26 granted the former Delhi minister interim bail on medical grounds for six weeks and it is being extended from time to time.

The ED had earlier claimed that the AAP leader was seeking repeated adjournments in the trial court on grounds that his bail plea was pending before the apex court. The probe agency had alleged that Jain had taken as many as 16 dates from the trial court.

The ED had arrested the AAP leader on May 30 last year on the charge of money laundering through four companies allegedly linked to him. It had arrested Jain on the basis of a CBI FIR registered against him in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Jain, who has denied these allegations, was granted regular bail by the trial court on September 6, 2019 in the case registered by the CBI.