Strong words: UK court rubbishes Katju’s comparison of Modi govt to Hitler
New Delhi, Feb 26: A court in the UK said, Markandey Katju's comparison of the BJP government at the Centre to Hitler is astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive.
The observations were made by the court while delivering the verdict on the extradition of fugitive businessman, Nirav Modi. The UK court also set aside arguments that the Indian judiciary was compromised.
The Westminster Magistrate's court which ordered the extradition of Nirav Modi to India rejected the expert testimony given by Katju in the case. He had alleged that the Indian judiciary was compromised and that Nirav Modi will 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.
Justice Katju made some astonishing, inappropriate and grossly insensitive comparisons, the court.
Said. Katju had said that because the Indian government cannot solve the economic crisis in the country, it was pinning the blame on Nirav Modi, like the way Hitler blamed the Jews.
While quoting Justice Katju, the court said, 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 further noted despite having been a former Supreme Court judge in India until his retirement in 2011, his evidence was less than objective and reliable.
The court said that, 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.
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 court also said.
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, further added.
As Ms Malcolm and Mr Hearn (Indian government lawyers) 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.