Did Markandey Katju too recommend tainted judge?

NEW DELHI: If Justice Markandey Katju was so concerned about the "corrupt" judge continuing in Madras high court, why did he not recommend his sacking to the collegium headed by the CJI? The Supreme Court judgment on Justice Kumar suggests he too wrote for making the additional judge permanent. 

After all, Justice Katju was the chief justice of Madras HC from November 28, 2004 till October 10, 2005. It was during his term as chief justice that the question of making Justice Kumar came up for consideration before the collegium headed by then CJI R C Lahoti. 

The Supreme Court's December 18, 2008 judgment, which considered the entire records relating to Justice Kumar, appeared to put a question mark on Justice Katju's attempt to project his "holier than thou" image in the entire controversy. 

Justice Katju had said it was he who had brought the corruption complaints against the judge in question which prompted Justice Lahoti to initiate an IB inquiry. 

But the judgment said, "It is to be noted that at different points of time, starting from the point of initial appointment (in 2003), successive chief justices have recommended for Justice Kumar to be made permanent. That situation continued till February 3, 2007, when the recommendation of then chief justice of Madras HC for appointing Justice Kumar as a permanent judge was accepted." 

If successive chief justices of Madras HC recommended Justice Kumar being made permanent right from 2003, would that not include Justice Katju among them?

People ask why Justice Katju has opened his mouth now, after 10 years.
The answer is very simple.
Justice Katju was appointed Chairman, Press Council of India, by the UPA.
He always wrote in favour of the UPA as long as the UPA was in power as he had to curry favour with his masters.
Now, that the UPA is vanquished, he has to curry favour with his new masters, the BJP. Hence, his outburst.
The government is thinking about doing away with the collegium system of appointment of judges. Why?
In the above case,I find there was nothing wrong in the recommendation of the collegium. It was the government which vitiated the recommendation at the instigation of its partner from the south and made the Chief Justice, by himself, change the recommendation of the Collegium.
If anything is to be done, political interference should be stopped.
The judiciary we find is the strongest pillar in the government and has been functioning quite well in reigning a corrupt government, in spite of the government trying to push through committed judges.
The government has no hesitation in making a corrupt person the President of the nation, provided they are pliable.
The government should first put its own house in order by preventing corrupt and criminal persons becoming MPs and MLAs.