New Delhi: Satyender Jain’s key defence in Rouse Avenue court Wednesday was that he was in jail when Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) alleges he gave his nod to “irregularities” in the tendering process of Delhi Jal Board (DJB).While ACB has claimed the former AAP minister was a party to tweaking of tender rules that allowed its terms and conditions to be manipulated, Jain has maintained he stood relieved of the water portfolio following his arrest by ED on May 30, 2022, in a money laundering case and thus could not have accessed DJB files.Only a deeper probe may reveal whether Jain, who was technically still a minister after his arrest four years ago, though no longer overseeing DJB, could influence decisions linked to it from behind bars.Rules, security protocols and court permissions govern such cases where an elected minister is arrested, goes to jail as an undertrial but continues to access key files requiring his or her nod for day-to-day governance.“If one is in judicial custody as an undertrial, accessing all such documents beyond case-related papers requires specific permission from the court concerned,” Sunil Gupta, former Tihar jail legal adviser, said Wednesday.“The lawyer for the accused or the department would be required to seek the court’s nod before any document reaches the jail since the person is in judicial custody. If the person has been convicted and filed an appeal, then he is in State custody and only the jail superintendent can allow him access to any file,” Gupta said.He stressed that each document signed by an inmate even if in discharge of an official function must be vetted by the court or prison administration and would be recorded.The issue had come under scrutiny when former CM Arvind Kejriwal was arrested in the Delhi excise policy case and continued functioning from jail for a few months, even triggering a PIL against the move in Delhi High Court.The HC had said there was no legal provision prohibiting the CM from running the govt after his arrest to warrant any judicial interference, and that executive authorities would act in case there is a constitutional failure.
