Nirav Modi case: Justice Katju faces PIL for ‘insulting Indian judiciary’


A public interest litigation has been filed in the Indian Supreme Court seeking legal action against Justice Markandey Katju, a former judge of the court, alleging that he cast aspersions and made insinuations on the integrity and credibility of the Indian judiciary while deposing for fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi before the Westminster Magistracy court of the United Kingdom.

The PIL has been filed by Nand Kishore Garg through advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi.

The Indian judiciary must not take this issue casually as such derogatory deposition made the entire judiciary suspect in the eyes of the international community. It is high time to redeem the glory of Indian judiciary by acting proactively to stop such routine false allegations,” said the plea.

It contended that the deposition made by Katju is highly derogatory and insulting to the entire judicial system of India.

His allegations amount to questioning the very credibility of judicial institution where millions of citizens are reposing their faith and trust. The allegation of fairness of judicial administration is totally unfounded as the justice delivery system of India is quite strong and robust,” argued the petitioner.

The petitioner has urged the top court to issue a broad guideline on issues of public criticism/maligning of the judicial system and it’s serving judges especially from those who served the highest institution of our country.

According to the plea, Katju made allegations that 50 percent of the judiciary is corrupt in India and therefore a fair justice is not possible for PNB scam accused Nirav Modi in the country.

The allegation made by Katju has eroded the faith and trust of common people in the judiciary. It is high time that the Indian judiciary must come up with exemplary action against those people who are routinely lowering the integrity of the judicial system by leveling extremely atrocious and fake allegations for their personal publicity,” said the plea.

The petitioner argued that the image of the judiciary has been lowered following the highly derogatory deposition where serious allegations have been made only to protect the interest of fugitive.