PIL in Supreme Court seeks authorized motion towards Justice Markandey Katju for `tarnishing picture of judicial system` by deposing Nirav Modi case

45

New Delhi: A public curiosity litigation (PIL) filed within the Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) looking for authorized motion towards former apex court docket choose Justice Markandey Katju for bringing disrepute to the Indian judicial system whereas deposing earlier than a court docket within the United Kingdom.

The petitioner sought initiation of acceptable authorized motion towards Justice Katju for casting aspersions and insinuations to the integrity and credibility of the Indian Judiciary whereas deposing for fugitive accused Nirav Modi earlier than the Westminster Magistracy court docket of United Kingdom.

The SC was requested to go a broad guideline on problems with public criticism/maligning of the judicial system and its serving judges particularly from those that served the very best establishment of our nation. 

The PIL additionally sought a path {that a} excessive powered court-monitored committee could also be set as much as look into the extremely contemptuous and disparaging remarks made by Katju questioning the integrity of the judicial system in our nation.

Live TV

The petitioner stated that depositions made by Justice Katju are extremely derogatory and insulting to your entire judicial system of India. His allegations quantity to questioning the very credibility of the judicial establishments the place tens of millions of residents are reposing their religion and belief.

The allegation made by Justice Katju that 50% judiciary is corrupt in India and due to this fact a good justice just isn’t attainable for fugitive accused, Nirav Modi, in India, the petition stated, including that the allegation made by Justice Katju has eroded the religion and belief of frequent individuals within the judiciary. 

The petitioner added, “the image of our judiciary has lowered down following the highly derogatory deposition where serious allegations have been made only to protect the interest of fugitive accused. 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.”