A day after informing Parliament that the PMO under Manmohan Singh had pushed for extension to a judge facing corruption charges, the government on Wednesday demanded 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, first brought out by former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju, 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 here, “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?
All these things people of India have got a right to know. That will help enhance the image of the judiciary and also remove the misgivings if any by such a statement from the former PM,” Naidu said.
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had informed Parliament on Tuesday 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 inquiries and decided that the case of this judge should not be taken up.
- Shah Rukh Khan On Raees Clash With Kaabil: It’s Impossible To Have A Solo Release In India
- US-President Elect Donald Trump Named TIME’s Person Of The Year 2016
- O. Panneerselvam: 10 Things You Need To Know
- PM Narendra Modi Slams Opposition For Not Letting Parliament Function
- Nawazuddin Siddiqui On Working In Raees: Was Nervous To Shoot With Shah Rukh Khan
- Bathinda Dancer Murder: Video Showing Accused Opening Fire At Marriage
- 5 Lesser Known Facts About Sasikala Natarajan
- Congress Leader Shashi Tharoor’s Delhi Home Burgled: Here’s What Happened
- Reserve Bank Of India Keeps Repo Rate Unchanged Post Demonetisation
- Bigg Boss 10 Dec 06 Review: Swami Om Pees In Kitchen
- Lenovo k6 Power Video Review
- Bigg Boss 10 December 5 Review: Manveer Calls Swami Om ‘kachdaa’
- PM Narendra Modi Declared Winner Of TIME Magazine’s Person Of The Year – Reader’s Poll
- Paneerselvam sworn in as new Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
- Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa Passes Away After Suffering Cardiac Arrest
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 an 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.