Advertisement

Updated March 30th, 2021 at 19:44 IST

AG recuses from plea for contempt against Justice Katju for his remarks in Nirav Modi case

Attorney General KK Venugopal recused himself from hearing a plea seeking consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Justice (retd.) Katju.

Reported by: Akhil Oka
AG
| Image:self
Advertisement

Attorney General KK Venugopal recused himself from hearing a plea seeking his consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Justice (retd.) Markandey Katju. He was responding to a request sent by SC lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava as per Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court of India, 1975. This was in reference to the retired judge's comments about the Indian judiciary while giving "evidence" before the Westminster Magistrates' Court in the Nirav Modi extradition case.

Giving an explanation, the Attorney General stated, "I have to point out that I have known Justice Katju for the last about 16 years and we have been interacting with each other ever since. In this background, it is not appropriate that I deal with the matter". Thereafter, he gave Srivastava the option of filing the application for consent before Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. 

Comments on Indian judiciary

Nirav Modi has been accused of being the principal beneficiary of the fraudulent issuance of letters of undertaking as part of a conspiracy to defraud the Punjab National Bank to the extent of Rs 13,570 crore. Since his arrest on March 19, 2019, he has been languishing in the Wandsworth Prison after being repeatedly denied bail. Appearing via video link during his extradition trial, Justice (retd.) Katju argued that the Indian courts have become politicised. He claimed that the Supreme Court has “practically surrendered before the Indian Government and is doing its bidding" in recent years. 

Moreover, he added that ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi was "rewarded as a quid pro quo by being nominated as a member of Parliament after retirement”. In response to supplementary questions, the retired SC judge alleged, "I guess 50% of judges are corrupt in India”. While clarifying that he was not commenting on the merits of the case, he opined that Nirav Modi cannot get a free trial in India as he is being blamed for all problems in the country. Attaching little weight to his submission, District Judge Samuel Goozee of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court held that the Centre cannot be held responsible for the "media onslaught" in the case.

In the verdict, the judge observed that Justice (retd.) Katju's evidence was tinged with "resentment" towards his former senior judicial colleagues. Weighing in on his allegation pertaining to the nominated Rajya Sabha MP, he pointed out that Katju himself had been appointed as the Press Council of India Chairman by the Union government after his retirement. The bench added, "There is no cogent or reliable evidence that the judiciary in India are no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even where it is a high-profile fraud with significant media interest". 

UK court approves Nirav Modi's extradition

Pronouncing the extradition verdict on February 25, District Judge Samuel Goozee ruled that a prima facie case of money laundering is established. Noting that the Letters of Understanding had been issued between 2011 and 2017 without being entered in the CBS system of the bank to mislead authorities, he did not accept that the accused was involved in a legitimate business. Expressing satisfaction that Nirav Modi could be convicted, the judge also rejected other arguments made by the defence counsel. 

For instance, the court dismissed the claim that Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had tried to influence the case. Dismissing concerns about Nirav Modi's mental health, it contradicted the allegation of overcrowded prisons in India. Maintaining that Barrack 12 of Arthur Road Jail is far more spacious than the current prison where he is being held, the judge made it clear that the Indian government doesn't need to provide further details of healthcare that will be provided to the accused. Moreover, the judge said that there is no evidence to suggest that the fugitive diamond merchant will not receive justice if he is extradited to India. 

Advertisement

Published March 30th, 2021 at 19:44 IST

Your Voice. Now Direct.

Send us your views, we’ll publish them. This section is moderated.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending Quicks

After Supriya Shrinate, Another Congress Leader Insults Women
17 minutes ago
Delhi Rains: Hailstorm and Heavy Rains in Gurgaon on Friday, Thunderstorms Predicted Until March 31
18 minutes ago
Russian Volunteer Corps
19 minutes ago
Force Motors' Q2 results
19 minutes ago
Crew
19 minutes ago
Lok Sabha Elections 2024
20 minutes ago
Congress Press Conference
24 minutes ago
Virat Kohli and Gautam Gambhir
26 minutes ago
Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey: ‘Anti-India’ Bangladesh Journalist Who Questioned US, UN on Arvind Kejriwal
26 minutes ago
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Whatsapp logo