6 questions: After first explosive post, Katju aims at former CJI Lahoti again

Justice Markandey Katju has written a new blogpost posting questions for the then CJI RC Lahoti. Coming on the heels of a sensational revelation yesterday that an unnamed corrupt HC judge (suspected to be Justice S Ashok Kumar) in the Madras High Court was kept in office due to political pressure, Katju has now pointed his finger at Justice Lahoti. In the latest blogpost, Justice Katju frames a series of questions aimed at Justice Lahoti, and begins by asking,

“Is it, or is it not, correct that I (Justice Katju) first wrote him (Justice Lahoti) 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,and 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 ?”

He then goes on to ask if it was correct or not “that a few weeks after I personally met him (Lahoti) 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.” Justice Katju has also asked the former CJI  to confirm whether or not he had indeed called a “meeting of the 3 Judge Supreme Court Collegium, consisting of himself, Justice Sabarwal, and Justice Ruma Pal,” which after “having perused the IB report recommended to the Government of India not to extend the 2 year term of that Additional Judge.” [caption id=“attachment_648063” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] PCI chairman Markandey Katju. PTI[/caption] Justice Katju then alleges that despite the recommendation of the 3 Judge Collegium of the Supreme Court, Justice Lahoti separately wrote a letter to the Government of India asking the government to give another 1 year term to the corrupt judge. He alleges in the blogpost that Lahoti did not consult the other judges in the collegium when writing this letter granting an extension. Justice Katju’s final question is one that will be difficult for both UPA and the former CJI to answer. He notes, “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 ?” According to former Law Minister HK Bhardwaj , the answer seems to be closer to what Justice Kajtu had alleged. Bhardwaj told the CNN-IBN, “In the first hand, CJI had agreed with Justice Katju’s recommendation that the judge should not be made a permanent judge. But on the representation of DMK, and about 18 members of parliament of scheduled caste and backward class, this case was referred back to CJI, who agreed to extend his tenure pending inquiry. There was no favour, CJI of Madras did not favour him that is why he was not made permanent. In the inquiry it was found that he was close to political parties, later on he was transferred out.” While Bhardwaj’s response doesn’t confirm that judge in question was actually corrupt, it definitely brings out the point that the judge in question was close to the DMK. Meanwhile Justice Lahoti has responded to Justice Katju’s allegations that were made yesterday. He said, “Everything is a matter of record. Whatever I have done or not done is all on record with reasons. I have never done anything wrong in my life.” In his latest blog post, Justice Katju also responds to questions raising about the timing of his revelation, writing:

“Some people have commented about the timing of my statement. What happened was that some Tamilians had commented on Facebook that I am posting several matters on my Facebook post, so I should also post some of my experiences in Madras High Court. Then I started posting about my experiences there, and it was at time I remembered this experience too, and posted it.”

While the timing defence isn’t persuasive, the former law minister’s statement certainly goes a long way to buttressing the Justice’s claims. It remains to be seen what Justice Lahoti will have to say about this latest volley aimed directly at him.