[Nirav Modi] Justice Markandey Katju comparison of BJP govt to Hitler inappropriate, no proof against independence of Indian Judiciary: UK Court

If it was the Supreme Court of India that took exception to the remarks of Justice Markandey Katju in 2016, it was the turn of a court in the United Kingdom to dissect the utterances and conduct of the former apex court judge, five years later (Government of India v. Nirav Deepak Modi)..In doing so, the Court also termed Justice Katju’s comparisons of the BJP government to Hitler with respect to its treatment of fugitive businessman Nirav Modi, as "astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive"..The Court also brushed aside arguments that the Indian judiciary is compromised, after referring to observations made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on separation of powers. .The Westminster Magistrate's Court, which ordered the extradition of Nirav Modi to India, dismissed the expert testimony given by Justice Katju in the case..Justice Katju had alleged that Indian judiciary was compromised and that Modi would not get a fair trial in India. .“I reject any submission that the GOI have deliberately engineered a media onslaught. I attach little weight to Justice Katju’s expert opinion,” District Judge Sam Goozee said..The judgment contained some strong observations against Justice Katju..Comparing BJP government's handling of Nirav Modi to Hitler’s treatment of jews.The Court noted that in his cross-examination, Justice Katju made some astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive comparisons. The former apex court judge had said that because the BJP cannot solve the economic crises in the country, it was pinning the blame on Nirav Modi like Hitler blamed the jews. “It is just like “Hitler and the Jews”. “Nirav Modi is the Jew that must be blamed for all the problems in India,” the Court said, quoting Justice Katju..However, when challenged about his imputations about the investigation, Justice Katju stated that he was not commenting on the merits of the case, but was only opining that Modi cannot get a fair trial in India, the Court noted..Evidence given by Justice Katju not objective.The Court said that despite having been a former Supreme Court judge in India until his retirement in 2011, his 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,” the Court stated..Giving press briefing before giving evidence questionable.The Court noted with disapproval the fact that Justice Katju had engaged with the media a day before he was to give evidence in the case.“I found his evidence and behaviour in engaging the media the day before giving evidence to be questionable for someone who served the Indian Judiciary at such a high level appointed to guard and protect the rule of law,” the judgment said..While he objected to the trial by media in the present case, Justice Katju himself briefed journalists about the evidence he was giving in the proceedings, thus creating a media storm himself.“Despite being highly critical of the “trial by media” and its impact on NDM’s case, he 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,” the judgment noted..On allegation that Indian judiciary has surrendered to executive.Another stance of Justice Katju which the Court highlighted was regarding Justice Katju’s allegation that the Indian judiciary had surrendered to the executive.Justice Katju, the Court noted, had highlighted the example 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..But Justice Katju had himself secured appointment by the government as Chairman of the Press Council of India following his own retirement, the Court noted with disapproval..No reliable evidence that Indian judiciary is not independent.The Court underscored that there is no cogent or reliable evidence that the judiciary in India is no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even where it is a high-profile fraud with significant media interest..In this regard, reliance was placed on arguments of Indian government lawyers Helen Malcolm QC and Nicholas Hearn, who in turn highlighted the statements made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding the independence of the judiciary..“As Ms Malcolm and Mr Hearn correctly remind me in their final written submissions, of the observations made by the Solicitor General of India. India is governed by its written constitution which has at its core the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary by virtue of the separation of powers between judiciary, the executive and the legislature,” the judgment states..[Read Judgment]