UK Court Rejects Justice Katju's Opinion Against Indian Judiciary In Nirav Modi Extradition Case

While rejecting Nirav Modi's challenge to the extradition request of Government of India in the Rs 14,000 crore PNB fraud case, a court in the United Kingdom discarded the opinon given by former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju regarding chances of fair trial rights being denied to the fugitive diamond merchant on account of lack of judicial independence.Justice Katju had deposed before the UK Court as an expert witness for Modi, opposing the Government of India's plea for extradition on the ground that he was unlikely to receive a "free and fair trial in India". The written submission filed by him in the case states that Modi was subjected to "media trial" in India and that in such a "hostile atmosphere", he was unlikely to receive a free and fair trial in India. The former Supreme Court judge also deposed that judiciary in India was highly politicized and corrupt.District Judge Sam Gooze of Westminster Court, London, who heard the Nirav Modi case, not only discarded Katju's evidence but also made certain sharp observations against the former judge.The UK judge said that he attached "little weight to Justice Katju's expert opinion" as it was "less than objective and reliable"."Despite having been a former Supreme Court judge in India until his retirement in 2011 his evidence was in my assessment less than objective and reliable. His evidence in Court appeared tinged with resentment towards former senior judicial colleagues. It had hallmarks of an outspoken critic with his own personal agenda", the UK Court said.Going further, the Court took exception to Justice Katju going to the media before giving evidence, and said that it was a "questionable conduct for someone who served the Indian Judiciary at such a high level".Despite making commentary about the fairness of any trial process in India, he accepted on a number of occasions in cross-examination that he had not considered the evidence and it is evident from his report he certainly had not considered the full requests from the GOI, the Court observed.The UK Court also noted that though Justice Katju was critical of former CJI Gogoi accepting a Rajya Sabha nomination after his retirement, Justice Katju himself was a beneficiary of post-retirement job as he was appointed as the Chairperson of the Press Council of India."He(Katju) made bold assertions about corruption across the judiciary in India (including former Chief Justices) and that the Supreme Court had surrendered itself to the executive. Of note, despite being critical of a former Chief Justice passing a verdict in a Supreme Court case in exchange for a nomination to the upper house of Parliament in India on his retirement on a quid pro quo basis, suggesting collusion and corruption, Justice Katju himself secured appointment by the Government to Chairman of the Press Council of India following his own retirement", the UK Court said in the judgment.Not stopping there, the UK judge further said :"Despite being highly critical of the "trial by media" and its impact on NDM's case, he(Katju) took the astonishing decision to brief journalists in relation to the evidence he was giving in these proceedings, creating his own media storm and adding to the heightened media interest to date".No evidence to say judiciary in India no longer indpendentThe Court observed that there was no cogent and reliable evidence that the judiciary in India was no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even in a high profile case with media interest."As Ms Malcolm and Mr Hearn correctly remind me in their final written submissions, of the observations made by the Solicitor General of India. India is governed by it written constitution which has at its core the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary by virtue of the separation of powers between judiciary, the executive and the legislature. 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".Katju's 'astonishing' statements highlighted by Government of India during cross-examinationDuring the cross examination, the lawyer representing the Government of India, Ms Helen Malcom Queen's Counsel and Nicholas Heren, highlighted some 'astonishing' public comments made by Justice Katju.Katju's comments such as "90% Indians are fools", "gay relationships are humbug and non-sense", "women who remain single are prone to psychological problems", "50% of judges are corrupt" etc were brought up by the India Government's lawyers.Katju denied the suggestion that he was a self-publicist who was making outrageous statements to garner media attention.The Court also observed that Justice Katju made certain "astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive" comparisons."In cross-examination, Justice Katju made some astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive comparisons. He stated that because...

UK Court Rejects Justice Katju's Opinion Against Indian Judiciary In Nirav Modi Extradition Case

Manu Sebastian

Tags