Justice Markandey Katju: Opinion or Impropriety?

Justice Katju has been in the news of late for various reasons. He sometimes feels the urge to comment on the credentials of a prospective prime-ministerial candidate, or the compulsion to ask for clemency for a person convicted in a terror case. He also does not, by any measure, refrain from commenting on the true nature of the ‘culture’ that is originally north-indian.

The war of words between Retd. Justice Markandey Katju, Chairman of Press Council of India and Arun Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, recently dominated the news channels. The issue was over Justice Katju expressing his concern over Narendra Modi being projected as a harbinger of development, and Arun Jaitley retaliating, saying Justice Katju must resign as Chairman of PCI, as it is totally unbecoming of a former Judge of the Supreme Court to air his views political views so publicly. The issue Mr. Jaitley raised was one of ‘propriety’.

This brings my attention to another event that happened, about a year ago.

The Jaipur Lit Fest being organised last year, was in the news for all the wrong reasons. Mr. Salman Rushdie was one of the writers invited to speak at the festival. However, due to his controversial book ‘The Satanic Verses’, some conservative groups were against his arrival in India-more so, they did not want him to address the Lit Fest at all, and even issued threats against him.

What followed was a national uproar. How could an author be prevented from entering a country which claims to uphold the fundamental right to freedom of free speech and expression? Is this how strong our constitutional values are, that they give into the demands of conservative groups? What sort of a democratically-elected government, claiming to uphold and abide by the Constitution of India was running the administration in Rajasthan and at the Centre, which gave into these demands and did nothing? If one thought that matters could not get worse than this, they were sadly wrong. Not only did the State government just give into their demand, it also facilitated in creating a situation which would prevent Salman Rushdie from entering the country. All this over a book which was banned well over two decades ago, and the author of the book has, infact, entered the country after that.

However, Justice Markandey Katju, at that time, in an article went on to say that Salman Rushdie is a sub-standard writer and the Jaipur Lit Fest is not focussing on great literature. Undoubtedly, he is entitled to his own views on Mr. Rushdie as well as on the credentials of the Jaipur Lit Fest. But at a time when the freedom of free speech and expression was being stifled in the country, and there was nation-wide anger at the way the whole affair of Salman Rushdie was handled, Justice Katju chose to diverge from the issue at hand, and went on to express his views  on the credentials of Mr. Rushdie and the Jaipur Lit Fest.

 Was it really a burning need of the hour, to read an article on what Justice Katju thinks of Salman Rushdie? At a time when conservative groups were having their way in preventing an author from even entering the country, was it really necessary for him to raise criticisms on Mr Rushdie’s style of writing? At a time when the State and Central governments were giving into such irrational demands, was it warranted for a retired Supreme Court judge to doubt the credentials of an author? At a time when the freedom of speech and expression was being pitted against intolerant elements in society, was such an observation by the Chairman of the Press Council of India really even needed in the first place? What was it that he thought he was doing? Enriching the quality of public discourse?

Then came the conviction of Sanjay Dutt in the 1993 Mumbai Blasts case. Justice Katju, who had previously criticized the media for focussing on the lives of bollywood celebrities instead of focussing on the real, burning problems of the nation, this time chose to appeal to the Governor to grant clemency to Sanjay Dutt. The grounds on which clemency was sought were even more outrageous- the fact that Sanjay Dutt has starred in movies spreading the message of Mahatma Gandhi.

Then there are occasional utterances by Justice Katju about how Urdu is just as important and essential a language in north India as Sanskrit. He also affirms how inclusive development of all castes and communities is ‘real’ development. At the time of becoming PCI chairman, he had said he would work for media regulation and try to ensure that there is responsible, clear and precise reportage of events by the print and electronic media. Absolutely nothing concrete seems to have happened in that regard.

Today, the country is a year away from General Elections. It is obvious that public discourse will be sprinkled with names of likely PM candidates. Neither Mr. Arun Jaitley nor Justice Markandey Katju will alone decide the next PM of the country. The cases involving the role of all accused in the Gujarat Riots are still sub judice. Justice Katju will understand the baneful effects of commenting on sub judice matters  better than anyone else. Narendra Modi is being hailed for his development of Gujarat in recent years, and the people appreciating him also have an equal right to voice their opinions in a free country like ours. They do not need to be told that they are wrong, least of all by a retired Supreme Court judge, who holds an important office even after his retirement.

Though the allegations of impropriety against Justice Katju really do not seem very misplaced.