On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court reserved its judgment on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the trial court's decision to reassign the Bhushan Steel money laundering case to a different judge. This reassignment followed an allegation from one of the accused that the presiding judge had made a remark casting doubt on the likelihood of bail in 'ED matters'.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench reserved the judgment, noting the complexity of the decision and acknowledging the scrutiny judges face, including on social media platforms.

It was Ajay Mittal’s wife, also an accused, who had observed the proceedings and reported that the judge after the counsel left, remarked to court staff, 'Lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai?'

Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that the transfer was based solely on the testimony of the accused's wife, without any corroboration or official verification from the judge in question.

SPP Hossain contended that such actions amounted to forum shopping and undermined the integrity of the judicial process. He emphasized that the accused's wife had previously been granted bail in the same court, which is designated for ED cases and those involving legislators.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing the accused, maintained that the transfer order was merely administrative, while SPP Hossain disagreed, arguing it was a judicial decision. The trial court, in its decision to transfer the case, acknowledged the accused's apprehension of bias and emphasized the importance of ensuring perceived impartiality in judicial proceedings.

However, the bench expressed concern over the potential repercussions on judges if transfers were granted based solely on unsubstantiated claims, highlighting the impact of social media scrutiny on judicial independence.