No reprieve for Justice Katju from the apex court

The controversial former judge of the Supreme Court also a former chairman of the Press Council of India suffered yet another blow from the apex court. After putting him in dock through a contempt notice where the judge had to bite the dust, now the Court had dismissed his Writ Petition (Civil) No.504 of 2005 seeking to quash the resolutions dated March 11 and 12, 2015 adopted by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha respectively. The Court also rejected the petitioner-former judge’s plea that the Houses of Parliament be directed to give him a post- decisional hearing.

Dealing with the matrix of the case, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit also writing for the Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R Banumathi said, “On 10-03-2015, the petitioner, a former Judge of this Court published a post on his Facebook page in respect of Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. The post was entitled “Gandhi- A British Agent” and stated that Mahatma Gandhi did great harm to India. On the same date, another post was published by the petitioner on his Facebook page in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose referring to him as an agent of Japanese fascism.”

“These posts evoked immediate response and on 11-03-2015, discussion took place in Rajya Sabha. At the end of the discussion, a resolution was moved by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha which was passed unanimously by the House,” the apex court stated and added, “The Resolution was to the following effect: “This House expresses its unequivocal condemnation of the recent remarks of the former judge of the Supreme Court, Shri Justice Markandey Katju , against the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose led the Indian National Army for the freedom of the country.”

On the next day, discussion also took place in Lok Sabha whereafter the following Resolution was passed: “Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Shri Subhash Chandra Bose both are venerated by the entire country. The contribution of these two great personalities to the freedom struggle of the country and their dedication is unparalleled. The statement given by the former Judge of Supreme Court and former Chairman of Press Council of India Shri Markandey Katju is deplorable. This House unequivocally condemns the statement given by former Judge of Supreme Court Shri Markandey Katju unanimously.”

Following this, on 23-03-2015, the petitioner sent e-mails to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and to the Speaker, Lok Sabha saying that the aforesaid Resolutions condemning his statements were passed by both the Houses without giving him any opportunity of hearing and that rules of natural justice required that he should have been given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner further stated: “I, therefore, request both Houses of Parliament, through you, to recall the Resolutions and apologise to me, or else to suspend the Resolutions and give me an opportunity of hearing, personally or through my lawyer.”

Since he did not receive any response from the Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, Lok Sabha, he filed the present petition in the apex court. The Court appointed Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman as Amicus Curiae and also requested the Attorney General to make his submissions.

After hearing the parties at length and considering a host of case laws the Supreme Court concluded thus: “...freedom of speech in Parliament is subject only to such of the provisions of the Constitution which relate to regulation of procedure in Parliament. No separate law is required to confer jurisdiction to deal with the opinions expressed by individuals and citizens during debates.” And added:” If the nature of opinions expressed by such citizens or individuals pertains to matters of general public interest, it would certainly be within the powers of the House to have a discussion or debate concerning such opinions. So long as the debate or discussion is within the confines of the Rules, it will be expressly within the powers of the House to disapprove such opinions. No restriction is placed by the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure and none can be read in any of the provisions.”
Balancing the preposition, the Court stated that a citizen who has been named or identified, direct and personal attack or criticism is entitled to have his response on merits published.

Now, having lost the battle the wisdom should dawn on the learned former judge and instead of seeking an apology from the Parliament, he should tender an unconditional heartfelt apology to the Parliament and thereby to the entire Nation. Otherwise, it is quite likely that some equally wise persons like him might take recourse to the criminal law for the offensive statements made by him against the national icons, Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and thereby hurting their feelings.
Death for terrorists

The curtain fell on the Dilsukhnagar blast case with the Court sentencing Yasin Bhatkal and four others to death. While the people in general and relatives of the victims in particular heaved a sigh of relief, the AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi saw a conspiracy to target the Muslims. According to him, the cases involving Muslims were disposed of earlier than those involving Hindus. He cited the procrastination in Malegaon and Mecca Masjid cases in support of his arguments. Such a myopic view apart, the learned leader who is an MP and a barrister himself, should have at least kept in mind that the trial in a case is purely within the domain of the Court and law does not permit anyone to interfere with the process of administration of justice. Surely, court cases are not conducted on the basis of caste, creed, religion, region or sex of the parties thereto.

However, there is some good news for the AIMM leader. A court in the Telangana State has delivered its verdict in a record period of 10 months. A Hindu, (to use his description of the accused person), by name J Venkataswamy (30) has been awarded death sentence by the First Additional Sessions Judge Court at Karimnagar recently.The accused was tried for the offence of raping a three and a half-year girl and killing her subsequently.