E-Paper
SG declines consent for contempt against former-SC judge Markandeya Katju
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta arrived at the conclusion after carefully going through the judgment passed by the Westminster Magistrate’s court and the deposition given by the former judge and noted that the same was held to be “not reliable” by the London court.
The move to initiate contempt of court proceedings against former Supreme Court judge, Justice (Retd) Markandeya Katju for his anti-judiciary comments in a London court failed on Friday as Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta refused to grant consent for the same stating that it was his personal view made as part of his deposition before a court of law.
The former top court judge had appeared as an expert witness in defence of Nirav Modi before the Westminster Magistrate’s court in London in September last year. In his deposition, Justice (Retd) Katju stated that Modi will not get fair trial if extradited to India as the Supreme Court of India had become “subservient to the Indian government” and was doing its bidding.
The scathing criticism against Indian judiciary formed part of the Westminster court’s judgment of February 25, 2021 ordering Modi’s extradition and rejecting Justice Katju’s statement as being “unreliable” and bearing “hallmarks of an outspoken critic with his own personal agenda”.
The damning criticism made by the former judge, however, did not go unnoticed as a Supreme Court lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava wrote to the Attorney General KK Venugopal in March this year seeking contempt of court action under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against the former judge. For filing a contempt plea, consent of Attorney General or Solicitor General is a prerequisite under Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975.
Citing his 16-year association with Justice Katju, AG Venugopal decided on March 30 not to deal with the complaint against the judge and directed Srivastava to approach the Solicitor General. The lawyer wrote to SG Mehta on April 3 and received a response to it on Friday.
SG said, “It cannot be denied that the expressions (were) used by Justice (Retd) Katju while voicing his personal views in his evidence regarding the legal system of our nation in general and that of our highest constitutional court - Supreme Court of India.” In the peculiar facts of the case, SG Mehta added, “I deem it inappropriate and inexpedient to dwell much into the issues arising from the expressions used and perception projected by Justice (Retd) Katju as he did so while giving his deposition as a witness before a court of law.”
However, not to be seen as supporting the statements made by the former judge, Mehta said, “Our (judicial) system is constitutionally and functionally independent from the executive and guarantees free, fair, neutral, transparent, and effective judicial proceedings, strictly in accordance with the law and the Constitution.”
Mehta arrived at this conclusion after carefully going through the judgment passed by the Westminster Magistrate’s court and the deposition given by the former judge and noted that the same was held to be “not reliable” by the London court.
The Solicitor General regretted the four-month delay in responding to Srivastava’s petition and said, “As you are aware, the country was passing through one of the most unprecedented human crises during the second wave of Covid-19 requiring my appearance in various courts which led to delay in responding to your letter.”
