NEW DELHI- Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju, who alleged that three Chief Justices of India made “improper compromises” during UPA rule in allowing a judge under corruption cloud to continue in office, posed six questions to one them, Justice R C Lahoti, on the issue. Katju asked if after receiving the adverse IB report against the additional judge, Lahoti, who was then Chief Justice of India, called a meeting of the three-Judge Supreme Court Collegium, consisting of himself, Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice Ruma Pal, and the Collegium, having perused the IB report recommended to the Government of India not to extend the 2-year-term of that additional judge? Katju, chairman of the Press Council of India, put the posers to Lahoti on his blog. On timing of his statement, he said, “Some people have commented aboutthe timing of my statement. What happened was that some Tamilians had commented on Facebook that I am posting several matters on my Facebook post, so I should also post some of my experiences in Madras high court. “Then I started posting about my experiences there, and it was at this time I remembered this experience too, and posted it,” he said. Katju asked, “Is it, or is it not, correct that after that recommendation of the 3-Judge Collegium of the Supreme Court was sent to the Government of India, he (Justice Lahoti), on his own, without consulting his 2 other Supreme Court Collegium colleagues, wrote a letter to the Government of India asking the government to give another 1 year term as additional judge to the concerned judge?” The allegation on how an unnamed additional judge of Madras high court was given extension at the instance of UPA-I government owing to pressure from an ally, a “Tamil Nadu party”, apparently DMK, and then confirmed as a permanent judge led to an uproar in Parliament by AIADMK MPs even as questions were raised by parties like Congress on its timing.
