In March, both the houses had passed resolutions condemning the former Press Council of India chairperson for his blog post in which he called Gandhi “a British agent” and Bose “a Japanese agent”. “What he said about Mahatma and Bose may amount to defamation”, said the bench. Can the court say something against Justice Katju in a judgement without giving him a notice? “We don’t see how the resolution is an injury to your reputation”, said the bench.
Advertisement
Reminding Subramaniam that Justice Katju has moved the apex court invoking Article 32 of the constitution for the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution, the court asked him to show them how his fundamental rights have been violated by the parliamentary resolution condemning him. Others had as much right to disagree as he had to criticise, it told him.
The South Carolina bench was headed by justice TS Thakur, and it agreed to hear the matter, appointing senior advocate Fali S Nariman as amicus curiae, but told him that the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha’s passage of unanimous resolutions condemning Katju’s statements did not violate Katju’s freedom of speech and expression.
But the bench said that prima facie, there was nothing wrong in the houses passing the resolutions, and it did not interfere with the fundamental rights of the former judge. How have your rights been violated by those people condemning you for your statements?
“What is the effect of the resolution?” He said the ex-judge was sporting enough to accept public criticism and condemnation for his remarks as he respected the freedom of speech and expression of every citizen.
The bench said Parliament was entitled to put its condemnation on record. “It does not prevent you from speaking what you want to and you keep speaking as you have always been”, the bench said.
But the bench of Justices T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda and R. Banumathi asked: “How has it affected your right of speech?”
Still, in the face of Subramanium’s insistence, the court said it would examine the larger issue of whether a prior notice was required.
Advertisement
In his plea, Katju, who described Gandhi and Bose as British and Japanese agents respectively in his blog on March 10, contended that his comments made as private person were academic in nature and manifestation of scientific temper.
