Wednesday, 17 August, 2022
HomeJudiciary'Astonishing, grossly insensitive' — what UK court said on Katju comparing BJP...

‘Astonishing, grossly insensitive’ — what UK court said on Katju comparing BJP govt to Hitler

Former SC judge Markandey Katju says UK judge's remarks were 'absolutely untrue and uncalled for'.

Text Size:

New Delhi: Ordering the extradition of fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi Thursday, the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, Sam Goozee, made damning remarks against former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju and his expert testimony.

Katju had last year appeared in the Westminster Court as an expert witness, claiming that Nirav Modi won’t receive a fair trial in India. The UK court, however, asserted that “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”.

It then allowed India’s extradition request against Nirav Modi, who is wanted in connection with the Rs 13,758-crore Punjab National Bank fraud, ruling that a prima facie case had been made out.

In doing so, the court called out Katju on certain comments that he made during his cross examination, calling them “astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive comparisons”.

“He (Katju) states that because BJP cannot solve the economic crises it is just like “Hitler and the Jews”, the judgment said.

“Nirav Modi is the Jew that must be blamed for all the problems in India,” Katju is understood to have said, asserting that the Indian government is trying to make Nirav Modi a “scapegoat for causing financial crisis in India”.

‘Outspoken critic with own personal agenda’

The court asserted that despite having been a former Supreme Court judge, Katju’s evidence was “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,” it added.

Katju was also critical of the former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, saying he was “rewarded as a quid pro quo by being nominated as a member of Parliament after retirement”.

However, in response to this allegation, the UK court pointed out that Katju himself had also accepted a post-retirement assignment by the government as the chairman of the Press Council of India.

“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 judgment said.

Also read: The Nirav Modi case has played out before in this book

‘Untrue and uncalled for’

Katju called some of the observations by the UK judge “untrue and uncalled for”.

“I have read some extracts of the judgment. The judge was of course entitled to his opinion. But saying that I have my personal agenda was absolutely untrue and uncalled for,” he said in an email response to ThePrint.

“Unlike Justice Thipsay, I am not and have never been, and never intend to be, a member of any political party,” Katju added, referring to former Bombay High Court judge Abhay Thipsay, now a member of the Congress, who also appeared as an expert witness for Nirav Modi.

The UK court was also critical of Thipsay’s evidence, noting that he “is a retired judge who has aligned himself with a political party on his retirement and received adverse commentary in the media”, but “he also engaged and courted with the media himself”.

Katju asserted that the UK judge had not said anything about the extensive material he gave to bolster his submissions and seems to have “just glossed over it”.

“Moreover, even assuming I have an agenda, he has not said anything about the extensive material I gave (including the opinion of other retired Indian judges, which is the same as mine) to show that the Indian judiciary has largely surrendered before the government (see my article ‘All the times the Supreme Court turned a Nelson’s eye to injustice’ published in, but has just glossed over it,” he wrote.

Also read: 4 ‘Bad Boy Billionaires’ & where to find them — What Netflix’s controversial show reveals

‘Over 50% of all judges are corrupt’

During the hearing, the UK court received evidence from Katju through a live link from India last year.

In his evidence, Katju alleged that the “highest echelons of the Indian judiciary have now come under significant political and executive influence”.

He also said the Supreme Court has “practically surrendered before the Indian Government and is doing its bidding and is not acting as an independent organ of the state protecting the rights of the people as it was supposed to be” and that the “Indian judiciary has largely surrendered before the political executive”.

When asked whether the problem was restricted to the higher courts in India, Katju alleged that a “large number of judges at all levels have become corrupt”. He spoke about corrupt CJIs as well, saying, “In last decade – many more chief justices have come and gone and it was known they were corrupt. That is my evidence, that is true. I am an insider – 20 years a judge – I know the workings … Over 50% of all judges are corrupt – this is my guess.”

The UK judge, however, said that despite being highly critical of trial by media, 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”.

Also read: ED brings back jewels worth Rs 1,350 cr owned by Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi from Hong Kong


Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism


  1. Normally the legal people are expected to give objective, balanced statements. Even when Manu Sharma killed Jessica Lal in presence of so many people, a trial with all evidence, analysis, cross examination was done.
    Given this background of judges, it is a case of ” strange, but true” for Katju, where his statements look more like rantings of an old man than of a retired CJI. Remember the way he fiercely was advocating shooting of ” ask politicians” in an interview?

  2. I made a judgement on him when I read his judgement on Tagore and Netaji on the evidences he presented. He is entitled to his views but quite evidently he is less than honest. Gandhiji is British agent but his protege Nehru is not.

  3. former Supreme Court judge “50% of ALL judges are corrupt in India… and…. therefore a fair justice is not possible for fugitive accused”
    Does Mr Katju’s conscious allow him to major his words before saying something like this on international platform or he as an insider who wish to show mirror to Indian judiciary.
    IF Supreme Court of India takes few letters ( Tweets) so seriously & initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Where & How shall we contextualize Ex-SCJ Mr Katju’s all these arguments (recorded on International platform) !

  4. If two retired judges , one from the high court and another from SC an freely offer to be expert witnesses for an alleged scamster in case involving 14500Cr. is not freedom of speech and expression that what is ?
    Both of them must be enjoying the pensions in excess of Rs. 100,000 per month paid by the government, which they are free to run down in a foreign court. Regardless of the comments of the British Judge, these two made their point to say the Judicial system was corrupt an the condition in Indian jails were not good enough for Nirav Modi to be sent to.
    Nothing wrong a judge must have an opinion, and we have lived with their judgements while they were in the chair.

    • Technically, Yes. But it is very much like Clinton’s claims that there was no actual intercourse with Monica!

  5. Media appears under influence of jihads. During last few months only ,dozens have been brutally murdered by Muslims. However media almost ignored. Even ethnic cleansing of Non Muslims in Kashmir was shown as non event. Stories of sufferings of lakhs of non muslims are not published. The motive may be to hide jihadi atrocities. On the other hand, stray incident involving death of a Muslim is shown causing enormous outrage.

  6. I wonder who represents the unbiased views of the silent millions and millions of Indians…
    Not the Government (?) or opposition(?) who do not want discussions in the Parliament, not the experts with their own agenda, not the media who need resources for survival, not the exes (former Government servants, so to speak) who want to remain in limelight, definitely not a handful of activists and protesters, usually controlled by forces with vested interests –
    The only way forward is a moratorium on the number of political parties and a realisation, even by the citizens, that freedom comes with a load of responsibilities.
    Else, we are destined to remain a laggard democracy, reveling in the news of a handful of brigands who are of least consequence to the larger interests of the Nation.
    Tail piece: The media can take a lead to right matters.

  7. My goodness. Katju said all this in a foreign court about his own elected government? This is pure ego, jealously and meanness, putting himself above everything. Very hitler-isq! Irony that a foreign judge had to point this out to him.

  8. Bravo for the UK judge. One has to wonder as to the motives of this erstwhile SC judge, who seems to have an agenda of his own, especially his biased, venomous even, opinions regarding the BJP. One may even make a case for self-aggrandizement, to say the least.

  9. Katju is a disgrace. He is engaging in shameless calumny, presumably for filthy lucre. He had earlier brazenly suggested that Sanjay Dutt ought to be let off in the 1993 blasts case, even as others accused of lesser crimes in the same case be punished. I’m amazed this person became a judge of the Supreme Court of India. By inviting censure in a foreign court, he has brought shame to the Supreme Court of India.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular