The Supreme Court on Monday "prima facie" did not find fault with Parliament passing resolutions condemning Justice Markandey Katju his for blog against Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose and sought assistance of the Attorney General and jurist FS Nariman in deciding his plea for quashing them.
The Supreme Court on Monday "prima facie" did not find fault with Parliament passing resolutions condemning Justice Markandey Katju his for blog against Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose and sought assistance of the Attorney General and jurist FS Nariman in deciding his plea for quashing them.
"Once you (Katju) express your views in public domain, then you have to accept the criticism. You don't say that 'oh, I am condemned.' Institutions like Parliament can also disagree with you," a three-judge bench headed by Justice TS Thakur said.
The bench, which appointed Nariman as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), also said, "Prima facie, it seems that Parliament's resolutions do not cause any injury to reputation of Justice Katju."
Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the former the Press Council of India Chairperson, said Justice Katju is entitled to his views, which are backed by many historians and the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha condemned him for his statements without even giving him a hearing.
Justice Katju, in one of his blogs, had called "Gandhi a British agent, and Subhas Chandra Bose a Japanese agent." "There is a freedom to say. Can the court say something against Justice Katju in a judgement without giving him a notice?," Subramaniam said, adding the fundamental right to life with dignity of Justice Katju has been infringed upon as he has not been given an opportunity before adoption of the resolutions.
At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justices V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi, asked as to which fundamental right of Justice Katju has been "taken away".
"Come to the point, which fundamental right has been taken away and how that is affecting your reputation? Every other individual has right to disagree with you.
"Does condemnation (of Parliament) take your fundamental rights away? How you can say that the institution has no right to condemn you?" the bench said. However, Subramaniam contended," Any citizen who voices an opinion cannot be condemned by an institution without following the principle of natural justice."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Markandey Katju")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}