A lot of criticism has been made over my deposition in the UK in the case relating to extradition proceedings of Nirav Modi, and the British judge’s comments about me. The judge was, of course, entitled to his opinion. But let me set the record straight.
I did not say before the British judge anything on the merits of the case of whether Nirav Modi was a criminal or not. That is to be decided in a trial. What I said is that he cannot expect a fair trial in India.
And I said that because the Indian judiciary has largely surrendered before the government and is no longer independent and impartial as it is expected to be. See in this connection my articles All the times the Supreme Court turned a Nelson’s eye to injustice and The Ayodhya verdict is based on a strange feat of logic published in various websites as well as statements of other retired Indian judges.
The appointment of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha soon after retirement is also clear proof of that. Recently in a function, a sitting justice of the Supreme Court, Justice M.R. Shah, and the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court Vikram Nath praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi profusely. Is this not shameless kowtowing before the executive?
In an interview, the former chief justice of Delhi and Madras High Courts, A.P. Shah said that the judiciary has let the Indian people down and abdicated its duty of defending the fundamental rights of the people.
Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has said that Nirav Modi is a big criminal. So Nirav Modi has already been condemned by the government without a trial, and the judiciary, which usually does the bidding of the government, is likely to follow suit. There is a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, but Nirav Modi has been condemned without a trial.
The British judge has said I have a personal agenda. This is untrue. I am not, have never been, nor intend to be a member of any political party.
He has also said I have made statements against several judges. Yes, I have spoken against Gogoi and other judges who have kowtowed before the ruling party in India, instead of being independent and impartial, thus violating their oath and conscience. In his order, the British judge glossed over the extensive material I submitted, and instead made all kinds of uncalled for and untrue comments.
Have I defamed the judiciary, or has the judiciary defamed itself by its repeated misbehaviour?
Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in 2011.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK
