A day after informing Parliament that the PMO under Manmohan Singh had pushed for extension to a judge facing corruption charges, the government demanded on Wednesday that the former Prime Minister should make a “categorical” statement on the controversial matter.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu said the whole account of the affair was first brought out by former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju and showed how the government was functioning during the UPA regime. It was trying to compromise on each and every issue, he alleged.
Questioning the silence of Singh, he told reporters, “His silence is an indication that there is something to hide. So in the interest of justice, the former Prime Minister should come out and make a categorical statement about what exactly has happened. Was he really under pressure?
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had informed Parliament on Tuesday that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) under Singh had written a note, asking why the Supreme Court collegium had not recommended extension for a Madras High Court judge who was facing corruption charges after the collegium expressed its hesitation.
Giving details of the controversial case over which Parliament has witnessed uproar, he had said the Supreme Court collegium in 2003 had “certain reservations” and had made some enquiries and decided that the case of this judge should not be taken up.
But later during the UPA rule, a clarification was sought by the PMO as to why he should not be recommended, Prasad had said in Lok Sabha.
His response had come after uproar over the issue forced two adjournments of Lok Sabha as agitated AIADMK members stormed the well demanding that the name of the then DMK minister who “pressurised” the UPA government to confirm the appointment of controversial judge be made public.
Katju has alleged that three ex-Chief Justices of India– Justice R C Lahoti and his successors Justices Y K Sabharwal and K G Balakrishnan–made “improper compromises” and “succumbed” to political pressure in the extension of additional judge at the instance of UPA-I government owing to pressure from an ally, a “Tamil Nadu party”, and his confirmation as permanent judge.