http://gfilesindia.com/
The Markandey Purana: Questions, no Answers
The mythological Markandeya Purana begins with the sage Jaimini asking 4 questions:"Why did Lord Vasudeva, the original creator, maintainer and destroyer of the Universe, who is devoid of material qualities, assumed a human like form to descend upon the earth and engage in pastimes with His devotees? For what reason did Krsna, the daughter of King Drupada, become the common wife of the five Pandavas? How is it, that Lord Baladeva, the first expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, went on a tour of holy places of pilgrimage so as to become freed from the sin of killing a brahmana? And, how is it that Draupadi's five unmarried sons were killed after the great battle at Kuruksetra, as if they had no protector?" The Purana gives answers to these posers.
But in the modern Markandey Purana there are only questions and no answers. It all started with the 21 July The Times of India front-paged article on corruption in the higher judiciary written by the Justice (Retd) Markandey Katju as a personal blog. This got him instant publicity that he has been craving for. In his piece, Justice Katju had alleged that an additional judge of the Madras high court facing corruption allegation was allowed to continue in the post despite adverse Intelligence Bureau reports, and that the UPA government persuaded successive Chief Justices of India first to extend his tenure and then to make him a permanent judge. Since then there have been several questions but no answers.
The first one to shoot was the NDTV anchor Nidhi Razdan who had put Justice Katju before the TV cameras. This needs to be read in full to understand Katju's sick mind and hidden agenda: "Justice Katju failed to explain why he chose to speak out now. Why did Justice Katju keep quiet about this matter all these years? He first heard of the matter ten years ago as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When I asked Justice Katju this question, he said it was irrelevant, that it did not matter, and that what is important is the content of what he disclosed. I persisted and said the timing was important since it was a serious allegation and one that should have been revealed much earlier. An angry Justice Katju lost his temper said he was "warning" me "not to persist" with my line of questioning and then stormed out while on air.....Five minutes before we went on air, Justice Katju spoke to me over the phone and said "You better not ask me nasty questions, you better be courteous. I walked out of your show last time and said I would never come back, but I am doing you a favour today. You better learn how to behave, you don't know how to behave". I was taken aback but politely told him I will be courteous as I always am with guests. Which is why, I presume, when he stormed out in anger a few minutes later, he declared 'I warned you'. While Justice Katju's claims certainly need answers from the former Chief Justices he has named and from the UPA, he also needs to explain his own silence all these years and the sudden decision to go public. Justice Katju may not like those questions, and he may think I need behaviour lessons for the same, but those questions won't go away. Yelling at me won't change those facts." If the great crusader was espousing a great cause why this meanness, that too with an young lady. Besides, what exactly is he hiding?
The first one to shoot was the NDTV anchor Nidhi Razdan who had put Justice Katju before the TV cameras. This needs to be read in full to understand Katju's sick mind and hidden agenda: "Justice Katju failed to explain why he chose to speak out now. Why did Justice Katju keep quiet about this matter all these years? He first heard of the matter ten years ago as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When I asked Justice Katju this question, he said it was irrelevant, that it did not matter, and that what is important is the content of what he disclosed. I persisted and said the timing was important since it was a serious allegation and one that should have been revealed much earlier. An angry Justice Katju lost his temper said he was "warning" me "not to persist" with my line of questioning and then stormed out while on air.....Five minutes before we went on air, Justice Katju spoke to me over the phone and said "You better not ask me nasty questions, you better be courteous. I walked out of your show last time and said I would never come back, but I am doing you a favour today. You better learn how to behave, you don't know how to behave". I was taken aback but politely told him I will be courteous as I always am with guests. Which is why, I presume, when he stormed out in anger a few minutes later, he declared 'I warned you'. While Justice Katju's claims certainly need answers from the former Chief Justices he has named and from the UPA, he also needs to explain his own silence all these years and the sudden decision to go public. Justice Katju may not like those questions, and he may think I need behaviour lessons for the same, but those questions won't go away. Yelling at me won't change those facts." If the great crusader was espousing a great cause why this meanness, that too with an young lady. Besides, what exactly is he hiding?
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, one of his illustrious predecessors Soli J Sorabjee and distinguished Supreme Court lawyer Harish Salve followed suit with the poser that by remaining dead silent for nearly a decade Katju had become a willing accessory to this ‘corrupt practice’ and 'improper compromises' that he is alleging.
Then came the missile from DMK patriarch M Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi who questioned the wisdom of Katju as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, in forwarding cases to the same additional judge whom he has accused of corruption.“The fact of the matter is that he has no problem in letting cases be adjudicated by a person whom he has accused of corruption, she said. “DMK has not been accused of any wrongdoing. But the question remains why make an unverified allegation in public after 10 years?” she questioned.
Karunanidhi through his advocate and former Rajya Sabha MP R Shunmugasundaram questioned the veracity of Katju's facts. According to him Katju has stated that the (corrupt) judge had the solid support of a very important political leader of Tamil Nadu and that he was told that this was because while a district judge he had granted bail to that political leader. Obviously he was refering to Karunanidhi and Justice Ashok Kumar who was earlier the district judge in Chennai. Shunmugasundaram has this to narrate the to prove that the information Katju received and relied on was factually incorrect:
"On the night of June 29, 2001, (80 year old) Karunanidhi was arrested and dragged by police officers in an inhuman manner violating all norms laid down in D K Basuvs Union of India case. When he was produced before the District Judge at his residence in the wee hours, the judge, late Ashok Kumar, asked whether an FIR had been sent to court and what the reference details were. The police officer Padmanabhan, DSP of CBCID, admitted that an FIR had not been sent to court already and the case diary extract was not available. I was the lawyer present and I opposed the remand citing a Division Bench judgment of the Madras high court rendered in the case of G KMoopanar vs State that remand should not be made without the case diary extract or looking into the entries. In spite of the arguments, the District Judge rejected my prayers and remanded on the basis of the copy of the FIR handed over at that time.
Furthermore, there was no bail application filed as Karunanidhi decided to remain in prison and prove his innocence. This was also stated to the visual and print media on July 2, 2001, by me after a visit to Karunanidhi at the gates of the Central Prison, Chennai. Late Justice Ashok Kumar did not have any occasion to decide the bail petition, as Karunanidhi was released a few days later by the State Government. I find it odd that Justice Katju had not even verified the basic facts before making a strong allegation making a strong allegation in his article that Justice Ashok Kumar granted bail to Karunanidhi. In one stroke, Justice Katju has accused three former chief justices of corruption in higher judiciary, a former Prime Minister of abetting and political leaders of participating in it. While no one should stay silent on the issue of corruption in our public institutions, the need of the hour is not to make slanderous statements based on hearsay."
Supreme Court Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi asked Katju as to how an unverified IB Report can nail a High Court judge on corruption and start penal action against him. Knowing the way IB works and its 'intelligence sources' and how it is interpreted, it is a valid question. Has India's higher judiciary has fallen to such depths that it has to depend on a police inspector to judge on the integrity of a high court judge? Most important of all was the question as to why Katju is condemning a judge as corrupt, who can't defend himself because he is dead for the last more than five years!
Katju had no answer to these posers and manages to mumble something to the effect that he wrote the blog because some Tamilians had commented on his Facebook post asking him to write his experiences in Madras High Court. He then launched six questions of his own targeting Justices RC Lahoti, one of the former Chief Justices who are on the firing line.
1. Is it, or is it not, correct that I first wrote him a letter from Chennai, stating that there were serious allegations of corruption about an Additional Judge of Madras High Court, and therefore he (Justice Lahoti) should get a secret intelligence enquiry held against that Additional Judge;
2. Is it not true that thereafter I personally met Justice Lahoti at Delhi and again requested for a secret IB enquiry against the Additional Judge about whom I had received several complaints, and from several sources, that he was indulging in corruption?
3. Is it, or is it not, correct that on my request Justice Lahoti ordered a secret IB enquiry against that Judge?
4. Is it, or is it not correct, that a few weeks after I personally met him in Delhi and then returned to Chennai, he telephoned me from Delhi (while I was at Chennai) and told me that the IB, after thorough enquiry, gave a report that indeed the Judge was indulging in corruption?”
5. If indeed the IB reported, after an enquiry, that the Judge was indulging in corruption, why did he (Justice Lahoti) recommend to the Government of India to give that corrupt Judge another term of 1 year as Additional Judge in the High Court?”
6. Is it, or is it not, correct that after that recommendation of the 3 Judge Collegium of the Supreme Court was sent to the Government of India, he (Justice Lahoti), on his own, without consulting his 2 other Supreme Court Collegium colleagues, wrote a letter to the Government of India asking the Government to give another one year term as Additional Judge to the concerned Judge?”
Furthermore, there was no bail application filed as Karunanidhi decided to remain in prison and prove his innocence. This was also stated to the visual and print media on July 2, 2001, by me after a visit to Karunanidhi at the gates of the Central Prison, Chennai. Late Justice Ashok Kumar did not have any occasion to decide the bail petition, as Karunanidhi was released a few days later by the State Government. I find it odd that Justice Katju had not even verified the basic facts before making a strong allegation making a strong allegation in his article that Justice Ashok Kumar granted bail to Karunanidhi. In one stroke, Justice Katju has accused three former chief justices of corruption in higher judiciary, a former Prime Minister of abetting and political leaders of participating in it. While no one should stay silent on the issue of corruption in our public institutions, the need of the hour is not to make slanderous statements based on hearsay."
Supreme Court Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi asked Katju as to how an unverified IB Report can nail a High Court judge on corruption and start penal action against him. Knowing the way IB works and its 'intelligence sources' and how it is interpreted, it is a valid question. Has India's higher judiciary has fallen to such depths that it has to depend on a police inspector to judge on the integrity of a high court judge? Most important of all was the question as to why Katju is condemning a judge as corrupt, who can't defend himself because he is dead for the last more than five years!
Katju had no answer to these posers and manages to mumble something to the effect that he wrote the blog because some Tamilians had commented on his Facebook post asking him to write his experiences in Madras High Court. He then launched six questions of his own targeting Justices RC Lahoti, one of the former Chief Justices who are on the firing line.
1. Is it, or is it not, correct that I first wrote him a letter from Chennai, stating that there were serious allegations of corruption about an Additional Judge of Madras High Court, and therefore he (Justice Lahoti) should get a secret intelligence enquiry held against that Additional Judge;
2. Is it not true that thereafter I personally met Justice Lahoti at Delhi and again requested for a secret IB enquiry against the Additional Judge about whom I had received several complaints, and from several sources, that he was indulging in corruption?
3. Is it, or is it not, correct that on my request Justice Lahoti ordered a secret IB enquiry against that Judge?
4. Is it, or is it not correct, that a few weeks after I personally met him in Delhi and then returned to Chennai, he telephoned me from Delhi (while I was at Chennai) and told me that the IB, after thorough enquiry, gave a report that indeed the Judge was indulging in corruption?”
5. If indeed the IB reported, after an enquiry, that the Judge was indulging in corruption, why did he (Justice Lahoti) recommend to the Government of India to give that corrupt Judge another term of 1 year as Additional Judge in the High Court?”
6. Is it, or is it not, correct that after that recommendation of the 3 Judge Collegium of the Supreme Court was sent to the Government of India, he (Justice Lahoti), on his own, without consulting his 2 other Supreme Court Collegium colleagues, wrote a letter to the Government of India asking the Government to give another one year term as Additional Judge to the concerned Judge?”
Whether Justice Lahoti will respond to these questions I do not know. But I thought I will also join the race and put some questions of my own since I have been tracking this "judicial johny-come-lately" from his days in the High Court at Madras where I live:
1. Is it not true that present Finance/Defence Minister and former Law Minister Arun Jaitley, as leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha had said this of Katju: “Though initially known for his scholarship, he was never a conventional judge. His utterances, both during his tenure as a judge and thereafter, are clearly outlandish. Dignified comment is alien to him...The Chairman of the Press Council discharges a statutory job. His job requires fairness, impartiality and political neutrality. Additionally a judge, whether sitting or retired, is expected to conduct himself with sobriety, dignity and grace. He cannot be loud, crude, and outlandish or behave like a megalomaniac.”
2. Is it not true that former Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had asked Katju directly: "You issue a statement first and then you order an inquiry, and after the so-calledinquiry committee submits the report, you decide to leak it out from your own email id without getting it passed from full Press Council of India which has been the practiseso far. Just because you're the grandson of eminent jurist Kailash Katju about whom we grew up reading and I'm the son of a vaidya (an Ayurvedic practitioner) you will say all kind of things. What kind of justice it is?"
3. Is it not true that n July 2009 while sitting as Supreme Court Judge Katju ruled that Muslim students cannot insist on sporting beards as it would lead to "Talibanisation" of the country. And faced with stringent criticism he withdrew it within days calling himself ‘secular to the core’!
4. Is it not true that Katju's ‘pearls of wisdom’ include statements that 90% of Indians are fools and the same percentage of journalists are ‘anti-people’.
5. Is it not true that most senior advocates who had the misfortune of appearing before Katju found him a compulsive preacher more interested in thrusting his views and opinions on them rather than listening to arguments and write reasoned judgements.
Katju's total incapacity to patiently listen to arguments and write reasoned judgements in manifested in the harrowing factual episode narrated below: Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) are the mechanism established by the Ministry of Finance that works under the Department of Financial Services which actually is department of banking. Despite DRTs functioning as mere ‘recovery agents’ of the Banks with most of them adopting a blatant pro-bank attitude, recoveries have not been up to the mark because banks could not substantiate their fancy and arbitrary claim of dues before the Tribunals! They do not even file counter to ‘reply statement’ of the borrowers, dragging the cases for years on end. In one case it is reported that the concerned bank did not file counter for ten long years seeking and getting adjournment from the DRT.
This was because most of the ‘bad debts’ are the creations of banks themselves indulging in corrupt practises and adopting archaic means and procedures in lending and recovery. Most of the bank managers were professional ‘zeros’ who could not even keep their ‘books of account’. Result was chaotic lending and highly exaggerated claims based on exorbitantly usurious interests sometimes running to 300% which even the most indulgent DRT could not decree. So banks found scapegoats in the 'small and medium borrowers’ against whom a sustained campaign of vilification was unleashed.
In 2005, when Justice Markandey Katju was Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, he readily succumbed to this vilification campaign and took Bank’s sob story as gospel truth. He summoned batches of over 400 writ petitions from small industries and enterprises that had challenged the arbitrary, illegal and coercive action initiated by Banks under the draconian Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 after making hugely exaggerated claims as ‘debt due’.
Advocates representing these cases came to know of this batch listing only in the morning of the days of ‘hearing’. As each batch was taken up there were over hundred advocates screaming to be heard but none of them were allowed to argue. Bench headed by Chief Justice Katju dismissed all the petitions and vacated the interim orders earlier granted by various judges. As if driving red hot iron into a festering wound Justice Katju preached and pontificated and recorded this in the judgment as obiter dicta:
“Before parting with these cases, we may mention that there is no equity in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have borrowed money, and hence they have to return the same with interest. An honourable man repays his debts instead of raising all kinds of technical objections when the time comes for repayment.
Banks and financial institutions are badly affected by non-recovery of dues. After availing the facility of financial assistance quite often the borrowers hardly show interest in repayment of the loans which keep on accumulating, as a result of which it becomes difficult for the financial institutions to give financial assistance to deserving parties due to heavy blockade of money stuck in with erring borrowers.”
With one stroke of his ‘judicial’ pen Katju condemned all genuine risk taking small entrepreneurs, belonging to respectable middle class families as dishonourable. How could such prejudiced and poisoned mind render justice to the common man, one wonders! Has this ‘great preacher’ ever ventured into at least some small enterprise of his own before occupying his elevated, robed position? If only he had done so he would have experienced the agony and anguish, stress and sorrows genuine small entrepreneurs go through in this land of looters and preachers! Contrast this with a judgment by the Apex Court wherein the need for High Courts to pass a reasoned order in each case before them has been stressed upon. Supreme Court observed that reason and application of mind are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless: “The right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.” But the ‘know-all’ pro-establishmentKatju has no use for such judicial norms and practises. As the above narrative would prove Katju's style of functioning and understanding of issues has been conceited, self-opinionated, shallow, abstract and arbitrary. He would pass judicial orders based on hearsay and market gossip rather than merits of the case. In July 2009 while sitting as Supreme Court Judge he ruled that Muslim students cannot insist on sporting beards as it would lead to "Talibanisation" of the country. Faced with stringent criticism he withdrew it within days calling himself ‘secular to the core’! His other ‘pearls of wisdom’ are the statements that 90% of Indians are fools and the same percentage of journalists are ‘anti-people’. It is the culmination of these that provoked Lawyer Jaitley to describe Katju as "loud, crude, outlandish and megalomaniac. The very fact that such a person got into the higher judiciary, became Chief Justice of two High Courts and finally got elevated to the Supreme Court speaks volumes about the utter inefficiency and inbuilt bias in the judicial system. Around this time last year when the Madras High Court was rocked by a serious controversy over a list of 15 advocates for appointment as Judges, Chennai based Forum for Integrity in Governance had sent a strongly worded Memorandum to the President and Chief Justice of India expressing serious concerns about two disturbing deficiencies in the process of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary – (1) lack of transparency and (2) no serious qualifying criteria, standards and norms for selection to such a high constitutional post. The Forum had made a pointed poser-"Question is not how a judge is appointed (Collegium or National Judicial Commission) but who is appointed as judge." This is this poser that need to be addressed most urgently if the higher judiciary is to regain its lost credibility. But again all we hear hear is only cacophony and not substance. Indeed unfortunate. |