JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU RAISES STORM IN A TEA CUP Justice has made an explosive disclosure that merits through probe, so that the faith of the people in judiciary as the ultimate saviour is not shaken at the roots
He asserts that the Additional Judge nearing his term should not be continued further for gross allegations. He requests the CJ for a secret probe, which is ordered on his request and is telephonic ally confirmed to him by CJ. Justice Katju avers that P.M was pressurised by then DMK Chief of the consequences of coalition Dharma through a Minister, In spite of adverse IB report, in appropriate antecedents , 3 CJ`s extended the appointment for one year at a time and that finally permitted holding of higher post for a brief period and which entitled to confirmation as a permanent judge The whole process promotion . extensions is termed as unjustified because it took two years to confirming him service. The Collegium appears to be to have indirectly succumbed to political pressure, coercion, persuasion etc. Why did the Collegiums, collude, compromise on the principles and this in spite of S.C observations on this issue including the adverse IB report ? The judge at the Madras H.C. is alleged to have deleted his adverse confidential reports and wiped the slate clean The then law Minister confirms that 18 DMK M.P belonging to S.C, S.T.`s met him in favour of the judge, who is believed to have granted bail to the DMK Chief. The law Minister denies being influenced, meeting CJ. being briefed by P.M, or seeing IB report, but under circumstances the strong flavour of political interference can be inferred if not legally proved. The CJ is not also specific about the adverse report of IB and granting extensions. Many politicians naturally seem to disagree with political perception, undesirable interference, and symptoms of corruption or coalition dharma, to shield themselves and which compulsions P.M m openly aired many a times. The timing of disclosures after 11 years and 3 years after Katju retirement has questioned his motives even though none doubts his integrity, Is it to sully the image of P.M or malign Congress and indirectly casts aspersions on Sc Judges cast a shadow on the working on the past CJ`s, judiciary, collegiums or to curry favour with the present ruling dispensation? Can Katju be accused as an accessory to wrong doing? Is he washing dirty political linen in public, when S.C has already made it public its opinion. Justice Katju has not confirmed or is conclusive on his facts, though he is willing to stand by the disclosures and face any consequences, but the discussions should be on substantive merit. He states that it is better late then never, but others feel it should have been sooner then never. The Govt, S.C. IB , CJ`s need to come out clean, respond seriously to the allegations and put the controversy at rest by not drawing blinds to block the sunlight. Let their open debate and not brush it under carpet by targeting Justice Katju that he is not a saint or that he called Allahabad judges as incorrigible or imputing motives for his late disclosures, refusing to name the judge or the Minister, Chief of coalition partner, keeping us in suspended animation, as a tactic of deviation from the core issue and dilute the seriousness of disclosures This raging public debate and controversy has focused for the need for revisiting collegiums system with its inherent weaknesses to National Judicial Commission at the earliest, purported to be transparent and free from the shackles of political interference. The veiled political interference in appointments, superseding is real and the case of resignation of Law Minister Ashwini Kumar for wetting the reports is not lost on any one though it may not be concluded as political corruption The embarrassment to all concerned at this stage is not the issue, but bending before crawling is disgraceful in the highest platforms of administration without the courage to disagree Nelson Lopes Chinchinim
