Justice Katju wrote an article in The Hindu on Narendra Modi's lack of fitness to become our prime minister. Well, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it.
Arun Jaitley questioned the propriety of a quasi-judicial authority (Chairman, Press Council of India) actively participating in the political process. He also asked if this was the retired judge's way of expressing thanks to the Congress party as the government nominated him for the post.
Katju responded by asking Jaitley if he was not trying to convey his gratitude to Modi for nominating him to the Rajya Sabha. Tit for tat.
Jaitley demanded that Katju should resign for violating the propriety of his office. Katju's tit was that Jaitley should take sanyas from politics inasmuch as he was twisting facts. Isn't the learned judge aware that the more one twists facts, the more one is fit to be in politics?
Jaitley says judges may not be given post-retirement jobs by the government. Katju replies why Jaitley did not follow this principle while he was the law minister. Score: even.
Katju also quotes the names of other retired judges who have accepted post-retirement jobs. He also assures that he will continue to voice his political views because it is his duty! How blessed we are!
As the war of words hopefully escalates, it is worth pondering whether The Hindu did well in publishing Katju's political article. The newspaper had earlier claimed that it was not publishing the name of the girl who succumbed to the gruesome tragedy in Delhi because it was a principled newspaper. Many other newspapers which also abstained from reporting the name did not make any such self-righteous front-page declaration. By publishing Katju's article, does the newspaper think it is proper to encourage a retired judge who is holding a quasi-judicial post to publicise his political views including a tendentious comment on the judiciary?
Arun Jaitley questioned the propriety of a quasi-judicial authority (Chairman, Press Council of India) actively participating in the political process. He also asked if this was the retired judge's way of expressing thanks to the Congress party as the government nominated him for the post.
Katju responded by asking Jaitley if he was not trying to convey his gratitude to Modi for nominating him to the Rajya Sabha. Tit for tat.
Jaitley demanded that Katju should resign for violating the propriety of his office. Katju's tit was that Jaitley should take sanyas from politics inasmuch as he was twisting facts. Isn't the learned judge aware that the more one twists facts, the more one is fit to be in politics?
Jaitley says judges may not be given post-retirement jobs by the government. Katju replies why Jaitley did not follow this principle while he was the law minister. Score: even.
Katju also quotes the names of other retired judges who have accepted post-retirement jobs. He also assures that he will continue to voice his political views because it is his duty! How blessed we are!
As the war of words hopefully escalates, it is worth pondering whether The Hindu did well in publishing Katju's political article. The newspaper had earlier claimed that it was not publishing the name of the girl who succumbed to the gruesome tragedy in Delhi because it was a principled newspaper. Many other newspapers which also abstained from reporting the name did not make any such self-righteous front-page declaration. By publishing Katju's article, does the newspaper think it is proper to encourage a retired judge who is holding a quasi-judicial post to publicise his political views including a tendentious comment on the judiciary?
No comments:
Post a Comment