AG removes himself from dealing with requests for criminal contempt against justice Katju
Advocate General KK Venugopal on Tuesday removed himself from dealing with a request for Criminal proceedings against former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju for his remarks against the court in the UK for the extradition case of Nirav Modi in England.
Venugopal, in his reply to the Petitioner of Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, “I have to show that I have known Justice Katju for about 16 years and we have interacted with each other since. In this background, it is not right that I deal with this matter.”
Section 15 (3) – Criminal Contempt process
In fact, He showed that Section 15 (3) empowered the Attorney General or the solicitor general to give consent to begin the criminal Contempt process if considered suitable.
“If so it is recommended, you can submit a consent before India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,” Venugopal told Srivastava in his one-page letter.
Moreover, Srivastava wrote to Venugopal on March 1 and looked for his consent to begin the criminal proceedings against justice(Retd) Katju.
Fugitive economic offender Nirav Modi
Srivastava quoted the ruling of the British court of February 25 while rejecting the request by fugitive economic offender Nirav Modi against his extradition to India.
Mainly, He said the British court had recorded the alleged “contemptuous” comment made by Kattue (Retd) Katju by means of evidence that supports NIRAV Modi.
“Contemptuous” comment
“This is quite axiomatically from the naked paragraph of the assessment that Justice (Retd) Markandey Katju has intentionally and wilfully contemplated the Supreme Court and has reduced its authority, not only before the British community but also before the public. In general, by giving a media briefing What is in complication in this matter, “says Srivastava in his plea to the Attorney General.
Statement of the justice Katju (Retd)
He said the statement of the justice Katju (Retd) had brought the administration of justice to shame in India and abroad and was able to damage the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court Institute in general and the office of Chief Justice India in particular, in eyes of the public in general.
Section 15 in the Contempt of court act, 1971
“Therefore, it was asked to give consent under Section 15 in the Contempt of court act, 1971 reading with the rules of 3 (c) from the rules to regulate the proceedings for contempt of Supreme Court so that the appropriate criminal contempt proceedings be made it with justice ( Retd) Markandey Katju before the Indian Supreme Court, “he said in his plea.
On February 25, the Westminster Court in London received the Indian government’s dispute to extradite NIRAV Modi who said that the evidence of it “was enough Facie Prima to order extradition to India to face charges”.
Submission of defense regarding human rights violations, fair trials, and prison terms
The court also upholds Indian guarantees and rejects the submission of defense regarding human rights violations, fair trials, and prison terms and decides to send Modi’s case to the Secretary of State, England for the final decision.
NIRAV Modi is desirable in India on charges of fraud and money laundering in estimates of the Punjab National Bank Scam USD 2-billion.
