New Delhi [India], September 8 : Senior Advocate Anil Soni on Monday criticised B. Sudershan Reddy, INDI Alliance's Vice-Presidential candidate and former Supreme Court Judge, after he held a private meeting with Lalu Prasad Yadav, asserting that the entire legal community was "shocked".
Former Supreme Court judge and INDI Alliance's Vice-Presidential candidate B. Sudershan Reddy held a private meeting with Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has been convicted in the fodder scam involving the embezzlement of public funds in Bihar.
The Senior Advocate strongly criticised B. Sudershan Reddy's meeting with RJP leader and questioned the credibility of a former judge aspiring to hold one of the highest "constitutional positions" in the country.
While speaking to ANI, Soni said, "The entire legal community is shocked to see a constitutional person who stayed as a Supreme Court Judge and who is aspiring to become the Vice President of this country, is not holding that responsibility for his hunger pangs of a constitutional post of a Vice President. He is meeting with criminals who have been convicted of a Rs 940 crore scam in Bihar and is seeking the blessings of a politician with no votes and no parliamentary representation to become the Vice President. I don't know what to expect from him if he becomes the vice president of India."
Advocate Anil Soni is one of the lawyers who issued a part of a joint statement against Reddy for meeting the RJD chief.
Meanwhile, twenty leading senior advocates of India issued a joint statement on Monday, expressing deep concern over B. Sudershan Reddy had a private meeting with Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has been convicted in the fodder scam involving the embezzlement of public funds.
The advocates who have issued this statement are Baldev Mahajan, Anil Soni, Parvez Nazmi, Arun Bhardwaj, Ajay Bussa, Ashok Singh, Sonia Mathur, Ravi Prakash, Kirti Uppal, Sanjay Poddar, Sunil Dalal, Beni Chatterjee, Sanjeev Deshpande, Ram Apte, Abhay Khandeparkar, Sanjeev Gowardkar, Chetan Mittal, Jamshed Mistry, Motising Mohta, Milind Patil, Parijat Pande, Subhash Ghatge.
"It is dismaying to note that B. Sudershan Reddy, INDI Alliance's joint candidate, recently had a private meeting with Lalu Prasad Yadav. Yadav stands infamously convicted in the fodder scam case, which involved the embezzlement of about INR 940 Crores of public funds from the State of Bihar," the senior advocates said in a joint statement.
They further said that this consultation cannot be justified by citing electoral considerations, as Yadav is neither a Member of Parliament nor is he eligible to vote in the Vice-Presidential electoral college. "The meeting, therefore, appears to serve no legitimate political purpose," the statement read.
Calling their meeting of dubious nature, the statement read, "For someone of Reddy's stature, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and his ambition, which is to occupy of one of the nation's highest constitutional offices, an engagement of such dubious nature raises serious questions about his judgment and propriety."
Raising concerns over his judicial background, advocates said, "It is particularly worrying that despite his distinguished judicial background, Mr. Reddy has independently associated with an individual whose criminal actions have been confirmed by Indian courts."
"What is equally telling is the silence of certain factions, who are usually up-in-arms at far lesser allegations. This incident only re-confirms the partisan nature of those who position themselves as self-proclaimed custodians of constitutional morality. It reveals their willingness to overlook serious lapses for self-serving interest and political convenience," the statement further read.
The advocates further said that this act by Reddy has harmed national interest through corruption and speaks volumes about his intentions.
"Regardless of this conspicuous silence, Reddy's decision to associate with convicted individuals who have demonstrably harmed national interests through corruption speaks volumes about his intentions and allegiances. This lapse, by an individual seeking to occupy an influential and prestigious constitutional post, represents a fundamental error in judgment, one that the public is bound to evaluate fully," the statement further read.