Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Case: The Government of India v Nirav Modi
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Markandey Katju had provided testimony as an expert witness for Billionaire Jeweller Nirav Modi. He opposed the plea of extradition submitted by the Government of India in a written submission, stating that it is unlikely that Modi would be subjected to a 'free and fair' trial in the 'hostile atmosphere' of India. He also added that he would have to face a 'media trial' which would also pose as a hindrance in a fair trial. He also accused the Indian judicial system to be 'highly politicized and corrupt'.
The bench of District Judge (MC) Sam Goozee rejected the written statement by Judge Katju. He observed that although he was a judge at the Supreme Court of India till 2011 until his retirement, the evidence he provided seemed subjective and not particularly reliable. His evidence appeared to be impacted by his resentment towards his colleagues in the apex court of India. Furthermore, he opined that his words seemed to be tinted with a personal agenda and that it was questionable conduct by someone who was once in a high position in the judicial system of his country.
Judge Goozee also noted that Justice Markandey Katju had previously been critical towards the former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for accepting the Rajya Sabha nomination after his retirement, although in the past Justice Katju himself had accepted the post of the Chairperson of the Press Council of India after this retirement.
Helen Malcolm, Queen's Counsel, and Nicholas Heren, lawyers representing the Government of India in the court highlighted some of the 'astonishing' comments by Justice Katju, some of which expressed homophobic and misogynistic ideas. However, Justice Katju denied the allegation that he made these comments to attract public attention.
The court stated that Justice Katju's comments were inappropriate and grossly insensitive.
86540
103860
630
114
59824