The DMK on July 30 wrote to the Vice-President Hamid Ansari seeking the removal of Markandey Katju as Chairman of the Press Council of India (PCI).
In the letter, also sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Union Ministers and secretaries Law and Justice and Information and Broadcasting departments, DMK legal wing secretary K.S. Bharathi said the party was writing the letter to bring to notice the various omissions and commissions of Katju, which amounted to misconduct and proven misbehaviour.
The letter said:
1. The DMK Party is submitting this representation to bring to the notice the various omissions and commissions of Mr. Merkandeye Katju. Chairman Press Council of India which amounts to misconduct and proven misbehavior and therefore is seeking for removal from the sald post. Mr. Katju has belittled the post due to his continuous outbursts and temperamental behavior which is not expected from a person holding the public office
2. As per the Press Council of India Act, 1978, the Chairman of the Council is a whole-time officer and draws salary and allowances from Central Government As per Section 24 of the aforesaid Act, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC Right from the date of assuming office of Chairman, PCI, he has been Issuing controversial statements and criticizing Political leaders, Parliamentarians, Legislators and now the Judiciary which in our respectful opinion a whole time officer holding a public office is not expected to do.
3. Being a whole time officer and drawing salary from the Central Government, occupying Government bungalow and availing perks at the cost of public exchequer, he is expected to maintain utmost dignity, decency and decorum of the post. Also being a statutory authority he cannot act as a mouth piece of any political party nor can he air his controversial views which are political in nature while he is holding a public office. Holding the post of Chairman of the Press Council and exercising quasi judicial functions, he is expected to be polite, well behaved, impartial, independent and considerate. On the contrary, he is interested in publicity mania and often throws himself in to midst of controversies and criticisms.
4. Some of his controversial statements which landed himself in criticisms are as follows:-
(a) He had made comments on 22nd December 2012 against the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and presently Hon”ble Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi describing him as “Phoney” and claimed that “there is no way in which the blot on Modi’s name due to the 2002 Gujarat Communal riots can be wiped out”. (Annexure I). When Mr. Modi was never named in the charge sheet, there was no reason to make such comment that too being a Retired Judge of Supreme Court, in a irresponsible manner.
(b) On 17.02.2013, Mr. Arun Jaitley, BJP leader and the present Union Minister of Finance and Defence demanded that Katju has to resign from the post for his outburst on Mr. Narendra Modi. Mr. Arun Jaitley said “should not a former judge who currently occupies a quasi judicial office as Chairman of Press Council of India, either quit before actively participating in politics or be sacked? Retired Judges must remember that the rental for occupying a Lutyen’s Bunglow post retirement has to be political neutrality, not political participation”. (Annexure II)
(c) Mr. Arun Jaitley in an English daily news paper wrote about Katju that “Though initially known for his scholarship, Justice Katju was never a conventional Judge. His utterances, both during his tenure as a judge and thereafter, are clearly outlandish and dignified comment is alien to him” (Annexure III)
(d) Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, then BJP leader and present Union Minister for Law and Justice and Tele communications criticized Mr. Katju that the article written by Mr. Katju is not in good taste. (Annexure IV)
(e) Mr. Yashwant Sinha and Mr. Rajiv Pratap Rudy, BJP Leaders called Mr. Katju of being partial towards a particular political party and demanded his resignation. Mr. Rajiv Pratap Rudy said “Katju is floating around the country like a vagabond and is giving unsolicited comments”. (Annexure V)
(f) On 20.02.2013 Mr Katju criticized Bihar Chief Minster Mr. Nitish Kumar and praised Mr. Lalu Prasad out of context and Mr. Nitish Kumar retorted as “Mr. Katju, you’ve dialed wrong number” “Mr Katju has crossed the lines and attacked me without substance”. (Annexure VI & VII)
(g) On 26.07.2013, Mr. Markandeya Katju called Mr. Narendra Modi the then Gujarat Chief Minister and the Present Prime Minister of India as ‘Anti national’ (Indian Express, dated 26.07.2013 Annexure VIII)
(h) In December 2012, Mr. Markandeya Katju remarked that “90% of Indians are fools”. The entire country was upset by his remarks. Then Mr. Katju came out with the following statement “From time to time people have been bringing to my notice that the language I use may have been harsh. So if it has hurt some feelings, I thought it fit to apologize” (Annexure IX). This would show that Mr. Katju himself has admitted that his language is harsh.
(i) Once Mr. Marka10ndeya Katju has commented about Ms. Mamata Bannerjee as follows: “Integrity is becoming rare in public life in the country, but Mamata’s integrity is of the highest order” (Annexure X). Contrary to his praises, he subsequently criticized her as “Mamata Bannerjee seems to have become intolerant and whimsical, and she is autocratic” (Annexure XI). This shows his unstable mind and level of contradictions.
(j) On 05.04.2013, Mr. Markandeya Katju remarked while hearing a case against the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms. J. Jayalalithaa as follows: “Let the Chief Minister say she is unable to run the Government in accordance to the Constitution and submit resignation to the Government” (Annexure XII). But now Mr. Markandeya Katju interestingly has recently praised Ms. J. Jayalaithaa for obvious reasons. His praises are politically motivated. His recent comments against DMK and its leader exposes his political affinity towards ruling party in Tamilnadu for obvious reasons Annexure XIII).
(k) In the recent outburst which created a great unrest in the judiciary, Mr. Markandeya Katju out of context has commented about “compulsions on extension of term” of a Judge of Madras High Court while he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. Mr. Katju ought to have revealed these “compulsions” when he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court or when he became the Judge of Supreme Court. However, after lapse of 10 years, he makes a scene for the sake of publicity and to draw attention of the media and to help the ruling AIADMK party to gain political mileage. Mr. Katju has also unnecessarily dragged the three Former Chief Justices of India and the Collegium members into controversy by leveling allegations against them.
(l) Why this sudden outburst comes after a period of 10 years of demitting the office of Chief Justice of Madras High Court and also Judge of Supreme Court, is a million dollar question. No one prevented him from expressing his dissent in writing or from swearing in the Judge against whom he had no good opinion or to allot works to him. When Mr. Katju has participated in the process of extension of the term of the judge in question, it is not open to him to question the legality or morality of the decision at a later date. This is the basic tenet of law which we need not teach to a retired Judge of Supreme Court.
(m) Even though there is no truth in such un-timely revelations about our DMK party, disturbing factor is that when he took the Oath of office of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Judge of Supreme Court, Mr Markandeya Katju is bound by the secrecy which has come to his knowledge in his official capacity and he is not expected to disclose as to what has transpired between the Collegium members and the Chief Justice of India. Hence, as a convention even though a person demits the office he is expected to hold on his secrecy unto his grave and maintain the high dignity of office and positions he held. Famous Jurist and Former Attorney General Mr. Soli Sorabjee has said that by questioning the former Chief Justices, Mr. Katju is lowering the institution (India Today dated 23.07.2014 – Annexure XIV). Thus Mr. Markandya Katju has now brought judiciary in to poor light for his personal ends. Therefore, time has come where the high constitutional functionaries and person holding public offices cannot be allowed to reveal any secrets which have come to their knowledge while discharging their duties, even after they demit office. Otherwise person like Mr. Katju after retirement may say some distorted version of the official secrets which has come to their attention while exercising public function. Any premium to such statement will create chaos and confusion in the society besides affect the integrity of the institutions. Therefore, the Law Minister has to bestow his kind attention to amend necessary laws and see to that the secrecy is maintained up to the grave. Otherwise, persons like Mr. Katju might twist and distort official secrets which have come to their knowledge while discharge of their duties, for their personal and political gains and may influence the mind of public.
(n) At this juncture we are pained to state that Mr Markandeya Katju on 23.7.2014 asked our DMK President and former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Dr Kalaignar Karunanidhi to disclose his personal wealth and family assets accumulated after he joined politics.(Annexure XV). This was not the duty of a Chairman of Press Council. However our DMK Chief has given a befitting reply (Annexure XVI) stating that his personal wealth details are like an open book and that he has disclosed every time his assets details whenever he stood in the MLA elections and that his only asset is the small house at Gopalapuram where he is residing now. Our leader has also replied that this house will go to the public trust after his and wife’s demise and that he has executed necessary documents in this regard. Our leader in turn has asked the property details of Mr Katju and the details of Chief Minister of Tamilnadu who was praised by Mr Katju and has raised doubts that only at the instigation of certain vested interest to protect the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu from disproportionate case tried at Bengaluru such attempt is made by Mr Katju.
(o) Even otherwise, the conduct of Mr. Markandeya Katju on making such revelations which has come to his notice while he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court amounts to breach of trust and is in violation of conventions which an outgoing Chief Justice and a Judge of Supreme Court is expected to maintain particularly when he is still enjoying the fruits of the retirement benefits of a Supreme Court Judge.
7. Recently Mr. Markandeya Katju article was published in “The Times of India” dated 28.07.2014 relating to his opinion on contempt of courts and the said article among other things reads as follows “If someone calls a Judge a fool inside the court room and goes away, in my opinion, it is not contempt, for he has not stopped the functioning of the court”.
8. Mr. Markandeya Katju as Press Council Chairman and being a quasi judicial authority cannot give such opinion and make it public. Such public utterances of Mr. Katju will not only bring disrepute to him but also undermine the judicial process and judicial system.
9. Such opinion of Mr. Katju is per-se criminal contempt. He is tempting the lawyers and innocent litigants to indulge in scandalizing and lowering the authority of court and cause embarrassment to the judicial officers. His recent utterances are not made in good faith and taste and are aimed now to tarnish the image of the judiciary and its independency and interfere with the judicial process. As a Chairman of PCI his actions and conduct has certainly embarrassed another institution viz. the Judiciary.
10. Article 50 of the Constitution of India contemplates broad separation of powers and that each organs of the State must not encroach into other. Thus his utterances are violating Article 50 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1994 Suppl. 3 SCC 509 in the case of K.A. Mohammed Ali Vs. C.N. Prasannan has observed that “an advocate who has raised pitch of voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Learned Magistrate and besides has used derogatory language against him amounted to contempt of court”.
12. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011 (7) SCC 776 in the case of Vishan Singh Raghu Banerji Vs State of Uttar Pradesh has observed that “humiliating the judicial officers requires to be curbed with heavy hands. Otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The ultimate aim to scandalize the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. An advocate profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and the justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable”.
13. It is submitted that the holder of public office on whom the power vests is accountable to the people. They are to be exercised for public good and for promoting public interest. All the powers have to sub serve general welfare and common good and should be exercised for the sake of society. The statutory authority should find his activities within the four corners of the statute. A statutory authority cannot transgress his jurisdiction and such actions and disorderly behavior amounts to a misconduct. Mr. Katju’s misconduct is detrimental to public morale and public interest. If such utterances of Mr. Katju as extracted above are taken as a gospel truth by any litigant or lawyer and if he is dissatisfied with the exercise of judicial functions by any judge of High Court or Supreme Court, he/she may indulge by calling the Judges by words as suggested by Mr. Katju, ultimately they would land in contempt.
14. All along Mr. Katju was targeting the Parliamentarians and legislators. Now, his ammunitions are being fired against judiciary. We suspect that only to silence the judiciary and to dilute the powers of contempt of court for obvious reasons, Mr. Katju is making such statements.
15. Therefore to safeguard the institution from the harm that may be caused by the continuance of Mr. Katju as Chairman of Press Council of India and since the Central Government is duty bound to protect the image and credibility of the Council so that the people’s faith in the Council and judiciary is not shaken, Mr. Katju has to be removed from the post of the Chairman of the Press Council of India. The various commissions and omissions enlightened above puts the post of the Chairman in a poor light and his utterances enlisted above amounts to proven misbehavior besides contemptuous. Such utterances of Mr. Katju not only causes damage to the reputation of the judiciary, legislature but has also damaged the independent body like the Press Council of India.
16. The Chairman of the Press Council of India is expected to be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have a moral vigour, ethical fairness and impervious to menial influences. He is required to maintain a high standard of propriety in his conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and his functioning would be deleterious to the efficacy of his post. Therefore, the basic requirement is that his official and personal conduct be free from impropriety. The same must be in tune with the higher standard in propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman. In fact even in his private life he must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety higher than those deemed acceptable for others. The intemperate behaviour of Mr. Katju has repelling effect not only on the reputation of the Press Council but also on the judiciary as he is the retired Judge of the Apex Court.
17. When the edifice of judiciary is built on public confidence and respect, the damage done by Justice (Retired) Katju by his periodical utterances and the controversial statements would rip apart the faith in the system of judiciary. Bad conduct and bad behaviour of Mr. Katju has eroded the public confidence in the efficacy of the Press Council of India apart from it has lowered the dignity and credibility of the judiciary, The guaranty of tenure and statutory protection would not accord sanctuary for misbehavior or to indulge in mudslinging activities time and again. The independency of judiciary and stream of public justice should not be put into embarrassment by way of these irresponsible revelations and statements as referred above.
18. We humbly submit that we had also addressed to Chief Justice of India to lay down guide lines to the High Courts and Supreme court to abide by certain standards of secrecy in exercise of the administrative functions the matters which come to the knowledge while discharging of the duties in the capacity of Judge of High court Chief Justice of High court! Judge of Supreme Court! Chief Justice of Supreme court and that the same will be maintained even after they demit from the respective posts.
19. Under these circumstances, we request that the authorities may kindly initiate action and remove Mr. Markendeya Katju from the post of the Chairman of the Press Council of India and oblige.”
In the letter, also sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Union Ministers and secretaries Law and Justice and Information and Broadcasting departments, DMK legal wing secretary K.S. Bharathi said the party was writing the letter to bring to notice the various omissions and commissions of Katju, which amounted to misconduct and proven misbehaviour.
The letter said:
1. The DMK Party is submitting this representation to bring to the notice the various omissions and commissions of Mr. Merkandeye Katju. Chairman Press Council of India which amounts to misconduct and proven misbehavior and therefore is seeking for removal from the sald post. Mr. Katju has belittled the post due to his continuous outbursts and temperamental behavior which is not expected from a person holding the public office
2. As per the Press Council of India Act, 1978, the Chairman of the Council is a whole-time officer and draws salary and allowances from Central Government As per Section 24 of the aforesaid Act, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC Right from the date of assuming office of Chairman, PCI, he has been Issuing controversial statements and criticizing Political leaders, Parliamentarians, Legislators and now the Judiciary which in our respectful opinion a whole time officer holding a public office is not expected to do.
3. Being a whole time officer and drawing salary from the Central Government, occupying Government bungalow and availing perks at the cost of public exchequer, he is expected to maintain utmost dignity, decency and decorum of the post. Also being a statutory authority he cannot act as a mouth piece of any political party nor can he air his controversial views which are political in nature while he is holding a public office. Holding the post of Chairman of the Press Council and exercising quasi judicial functions, he is expected to be polite, well behaved, impartial, independent and considerate. On the contrary, he is interested in publicity mania and often throws himself in to midst of controversies and criticisms.
4. Some of his controversial statements which landed himself in criticisms are as follows:-
(a) He had made comments on 22nd December 2012 against the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and presently Hon”ble Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi describing him as “Phoney” and claimed that “there is no way in which the blot on Modi’s name due to the 2002 Gujarat Communal riots can be wiped out”. (Annexure I). When Mr. Modi was never named in the charge sheet, there was no reason to make such comment that too being a Retired Judge of Supreme Court, in a irresponsible manner.
(b) On 17.02.2013, Mr. Arun Jaitley, BJP leader and the present Union Minister of Finance and Defence demanded that Katju has to resign from the post for his outburst on Mr. Narendra Modi. Mr. Arun Jaitley said “should not a former judge who currently occupies a quasi judicial office as Chairman of Press Council of India, either quit before actively participating in politics or be sacked? Retired Judges must remember that the rental for occupying a Lutyen’s Bunglow post retirement has to be political neutrality, not political participation”. (Annexure II)
(c) Mr. Arun Jaitley in an English daily news paper wrote about Katju that “Though initially known for his scholarship, Justice Katju was never a conventional Judge. His utterances, both during his tenure as a judge and thereafter, are clearly outlandish and dignified comment is alien to him” (Annexure III)
(d) Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, then BJP leader and present Union Minister for Law and Justice and Tele communications criticized Mr. Katju that the article written by Mr. Katju is not in good taste. (Annexure IV)
(e) Mr. Yashwant Sinha and Mr. Rajiv Pratap Rudy, BJP Leaders called Mr. Katju of being partial towards a particular political party and demanded his resignation. Mr. Rajiv Pratap Rudy said “Katju is floating around the country like a vagabond and is giving unsolicited comments”. (Annexure V)
(f) On 20.02.2013 Mr Katju criticized Bihar Chief Minster Mr. Nitish Kumar and praised Mr. Lalu Prasad out of context and Mr. Nitish Kumar retorted as “Mr. Katju, you’ve dialed wrong number” “Mr Katju has crossed the lines and attacked me without substance”. (Annexure VI & VII)
(g) On 26.07.2013, Mr. Markandeya Katju called Mr. Narendra Modi the then Gujarat Chief Minister and the Present Prime Minister of India as ‘Anti national’ (Indian Express, dated 26.07.2013 Annexure VIII)
(h) In December 2012, Mr. Markandeya Katju remarked that “90% of Indians are fools”. The entire country was upset by his remarks. Then Mr. Katju came out with the following statement “From time to time people have been bringing to my notice that the language I use may have been harsh. So if it has hurt some feelings, I thought it fit to apologize” (Annexure IX). This would show that Mr. Katju himself has admitted that his language is harsh.
(i) Once Mr. Marka10ndeya Katju has commented about Ms. Mamata Bannerjee as follows: “Integrity is becoming rare in public life in the country, but Mamata’s integrity is of the highest order” (Annexure X). Contrary to his praises, he subsequently criticized her as “Mamata Bannerjee seems to have become intolerant and whimsical, and she is autocratic” (Annexure XI). This shows his unstable mind and level of contradictions.
(j) On 05.04.2013, Mr. Markandeya Katju remarked while hearing a case against the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms. J. Jayalalithaa as follows: “Let the Chief Minister say she is unable to run the Government in accordance to the Constitution and submit resignation to the Government” (Annexure XII). But now Mr. Markandeya Katju interestingly has recently praised Ms. J. Jayalaithaa for obvious reasons. His praises are politically motivated. His recent comments against DMK and its leader exposes his political affinity towards ruling party in Tamilnadu for obvious reasons Annexure XIII).
(k) In the recent outburst which created a great unrest in the judiciary, Mr. Markandeya Katju out of context has commented about “compulsions on extension of term” of a Judge of Madras High Court while he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. Mr. Katju ought to have revealed these “compulsions” when he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court or when he became the Judge of Supreme Court. However, after lapse of 10 years, he makes a scene for the sake of publicity and to draw attention of the media and to help the ruling AIADMK party to gain political mileage. Mr. Katju has also unnecessarily dragged the three Former Chief Justices of India and the Collegium members into controversy by leveling allegations against them.
(l) Why this sudden outburst comes after a period of 10 years of demitting the office of Chief Justice of Madras High Court and also Judge of Supreme Court, is a million dollar question. No one prevented him from expressing his dissent in writing or from swearing in the Judge against whom he had no good opinion or to allot works to him. When Mr. Katju has participated in the process of extension of the term of the judge in question, it is not open to him to question the legality or morality of the decision at a later date. This is the basic tenet of law which we need not teach to a retired Judge of Supreme Court.
(m) Even though there is no truth in such un-timely revelations about our DMK party, disturbing factor is that when he took the Oath of office of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Judge of Supreme Court, Mr Markandeya Katju is bound by the secrecy which has come to his knowledge in his official capacity and he is not expected to disclose as to what has transpired between the Collegium members and the Chief Justice of India. Hence, as a convention even though a person demits the office he is expected to hold on his secrecy unto his grave and maintain the high dignity of office and positions he held. Famous Jurist and Former Attorney General Mr. Soli Sorabjee has said that by questioning the former Chief Justices, Mr. Katju is lowering the institution (India Today dated 23.07.2014 – Annexure XIV). Thus Mr. Markandya Katju has now brought judiciary in to poor light for his personal ends. Therefore, time has come where the high constitutional functionaries and person holding public offices cannot be allowed to reveal any secrets which have come to their knowledge while discharging their duties, even after they demit office. Otherwise person like Mr. Katju after retirement may say some distorted version of the official secrets which has come to their attention while exercising public function. Any premium to such statement will create chaos and confusion in the society besides affect the integrity of the institutions. Therefore, the Law Minister has to bestow his kind attention to amend necessary laws and see to that the secrecy is maintained up to the grave. Otherwise, persons like Mr. Katju might twist and distort official secrets which have come to their knowledge while discharge of their duties, for their personal and political gains and may influence the mind of public.
(n) At this juncture we are pained to state that Mr Markandeya Katju on 23.7.2014 asked our DMK President and former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Dr Kalaignar Karunanidhi to disclose his personal wealth and family assets accumulated after he joined politics.(Annexure XV). This was not the duty of a Chairman of Press Council. However our DMK Chief has given a befitting reply (Annexure XVI) stating that his personal wealth details are like an open book and that he has disclosed every time his assets details whenever he stood in the MLA elections and that his only asset is the small house at Gopalapuram where he is residing now. Our leader has also replied that this house will go to the public trust after his and wife’s demise and that he has executed necessary documents in this regard. Our leader in turn has asked the property details of Mr Katju and the details of Chief Minister of Tamilnadu who was praised by Mr Katju and has raised doubts that only at the instigation of certain vested interest to protect the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu from disproportionate case tried at Bengaluru such attempt is made by Mr Katju.
(o) Even otherwise, the conduct of Mr. Markandeya Katju on making such revelations which has come to his notice while he was the Chief Justice of Madras High Court amounts to breach of trust and is in violation of conventions which an outgoing Chief Justice and a Judge of Supreme Court is expected to maintain particularly when he is still enjoying the fruits of the retirement benefits of a Supreme Court Judge.
7. Recently Mr. Markandeya Katju article was published in “The Times of India” dated 28.07.2014 relating to his opinion on contempt of courts and the said article among other things reads as follows “If someone calls a Judge a fool inside the court room and goes away, in my opinion, it is not contempt, for he has not stopped the functioning of the court”.
8. Mr. Markandeya Katju as Press Council Chairman and being a quasi judicial authority cannot give such opinion and make it public. Such public utterances of Mr. Katju will not only bring disrepute to him but also undermine the judicial process and judicial system.
9. Such opinion of Mr. Katju is per-se criminal contempt. He is tempting the lawyers and innocent litigants to indulge in scandalizing and lowering the authority of court and cause embarrassment to the judicial officers. His recent utterances are not made in good faith and taste and are aimed now to tarnish the image of the judiciary and its independency and interfere with the judicial process. As a Chairman of PCI his actions and conduct has certainly embarrassed another institution viz. the Judiciary.
10. Article 50 of the Constitution of India contemplates broad separation of powers and that each organs of the State must not encroach into other. Thus his utterances are violating Article 50 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1994 Suppl. 3 SCC 509 in the case of K.A. Mohammed Ali Vs. C.N. Prasannan has observed that “an advocate who has raised pitch of voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Learned Magistrate and besides has used derogatory language against him amounted to contempt of court”.
12. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011 (7) SCC 776 in the case of Vishan Singh Raghu Banerji Vs State of Uttar Pradesh has observed that “humiliating the judicial officers requires to be curbed with heavy hands. Otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The ultimate aim to scandalize the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. An advocate profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and the justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable”.
13. It is submitted that the holder of public office on whom the power vests is accountable to the people. They are to be exercised for public good and for promoting public interest. All the powers have to sub serve general welfare and common good and should be exercised for the sake of society. The statutory authority should find his activities within the four corners of the statute. A statutory authority cannot transgress his jurisdiction and such actions and disorderly behavior amounts to a misconduct. Mr. Katju’s misconduct is detrimental to public morale and public interest. If such utterances of Mr. Katju as extracted above are taken as a gospel truth by any litigant or lawyer and if he is dissatisfied with the exercise of judicial functions by any judge of High Court or Supreme Court, he/she may indulge by calling the Judges by words as suggested by Mr. Katju, ultimately they would land in contempt.
14. All along Mr. Katju was targeting the Parliamentarians and legislators. Now, his ammunitions are being fired against judiciary. We suspect that only to silence the judiciary and to dilute the powers of contempt of court for obvious reasons, Mr. Katju is making such statements.
15. Therefore to safeguard the institution from the harm that may be caused by the continuance of Mr. Katju as Chairman of Press Council of India and since the Central Government is duty bound to protect the image and credibility of the Council so that the people’s faith in the Council and judiciary is not shaken, Mr. Katju has to be removed from the post of the Chairman of the Press Council of India. The various commissions and omissions enlightened above puts the post of the Chairman in a poor light and his utterances enlisted above amounts to proven misbehavior besides contemptuous. Such utterances of Mr. Katju not only causes damage to the reputation of the judiciary, legislature but has also damaged the independent body like the Press Council of India.
16. The Chairman of the Press Council of India is expected to be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have a moral vigour, ethical fairness and impervious to menial influences. He is required to maintain a high standard of propriety in his conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and his functioning would be deleterious to the efficacy of his post. Therefore, the basic requirement is that his official and personal conduct be free from impropriety. The same must be in tune with the higher standard in propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman. In fact even in his private life he must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety higher than those deemed acceptable for others. The intemperate behaviour of Mr. Katju has repelling effect not only on the reputation of the Press Council but also on the judiciary as he is the retired Judge of the Apex Court.
17. When the edifice of judiciary is built on public confidence and respect, the damage done by Justice (Retired) Katju by his periodical utterances and the controversial statements would rip apart the faith in the system of judiciary. Bad conduct and bad behaviour of Mr. Katju has eroded the public confidence in the efficacy of the Press Council of India apart from it has lowered the dignity and credibility of the judiciary, The guaranty of tenure and statutory protection would not accord sanctuary for misbehavior or to indulge in mudslinging activities time and again. The independency of judiciary and stream of public justice should not be put into embarrassment by way of these irresponsible revelations and statements as referred above.
18. We humbly submit that we had also addressed to Chief Justice of India to lay down guide lines to the High Courts and Supreme court to abide by certain standards of secrecy in exercise of the administrative functions the matters which come to the knowledge while discharging of the duties in the capacity of Judge of High court Chief Justice of High court! Judge of Supreme Court! Chief Justice of Supreme court and that the same will be maintained even after they demit from the respective posts.
19. Under these circumstances, we request that the authorities may kindly initiate action and remove Mr. Markendeya Katju from the post of the Chairman of the Press Council of India and oblige.”
No comments:
Post a Comment