Gopal Subramaniam should have been patient on SC nomination issue: Justice Katju

Image
ANI New Delhi
Last Updated : Jul 11 2014 | 8:00 PM IST

Justice Markandey Katju said here on Friday that Gopal Subramaniam should have acted patiently over the issue of his proposed appointment as a Supreme Court judge under the collegium system.

"Under the judge's case, the judgment of Supreme Court, where it was said that the government can return a recommendation of the collegium once, but if the collegium reiterates that recommendation, then the government has to appoint," said Katju.

"In the Subrammaniam case, the government had returned the recommendation of the collegium at the time of the summer vacation of the Supreme Court, when there was no opportunity for the collegium to reconsider it, because most of the judges, including the chief justice were abroad. By the time the chief justice returned, Subramaniam had already gone to the public domain, levelling allegations and withdrawing his name. Instead, he should have been patient and not acted out of emotion, the chief justice even tried to persuade him. Had he kept silent, it would have added to his dignity, and he might have been appointed," he added

Earlier, senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam had withdrawn his nomination for judge of the apex court after the government, citing a 'negative' CBI report, had asked the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider his nomination.

The government had apparently received a 'negative' report from the CBI about the lawyer who had represented the UPA Government in the 2G scam. It was also alleged that he has links with corporate lobbyist Nira Radia.

Katju also denied allegations of senior advocate U.U. Lalit being Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah's lawyer or supporting criminals.

"He is an outstanding lawyer, and a man known to be of high integrity, very competent, very loyal. He was a lawyer practicing on the criminal side so his clients were people against whom criminal allegations have been made," said Katju.

"A lawyer should not be identified with his clients. An ethical principle in legal profession is that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief, unless, he is engaged elsewhere or the client is not able to pay his fees. Lalit is totally misconceived, people don't know him and they identified him with clients," he added

Lalit's name was cleared by the Supreme Court collegium for being a judge.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 11 2014 | 7:46 PM IST

Next Story