“Orally you are attributing something to the judge. Is the judge not supposed to question. Is he supposed to be a silent spectator? Is he supposed to agree with everything they say… Till the 13th September there was no bias. What is the bias, the judge may grant medical bail not regular bail…Because judge allowed him to be shifted. That happened in July,” he argued.
Sibal called the ED’s application seeking transfer of bail proceedings a “purely malafide” and said the same was meant to “derail trial”, “prolong my custody”, “ensure whims and fancies”, and “send message to judiciary that if you disagree to us this is what will happen”.
The senior counsel also argued that Jain was factually not a minister.
“There is a notification of President that he is not a minister. He is not holding any department. He is not a minister,” he said.
Sibal also questioned whether he can attribute bias if the probe agency was under the Central government.
He further asked if the hospital being under administrative control of Delhi government was a ground to seek transfer of bail proceedings.
“Delhi government funds infrastructure of these courts. How can we say all of this?” Sibal pointed out.
“If a union minister goes to AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) can anybody say… I have been a union minister, Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad has been a health minister….If we go to AIIMS will we say that they will give fudged reports. Can we say all this? Are we castigating the medical community,” Sibal demanded.
Source: Barandbench
