New Delhi/ TIA NEWS
Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Markandey Katju today tendered an unconditional apology in a contempt case for criticising the judges and their judgment in Saumya rape and murder case.
Tendering an unconditional apology, Justice Katju in his application, which was mentioned today, before the bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, has said that he has deleted all the facebook posts and respected the judicial process and judiciary.
After senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan mentioned the application for an early hearing, Justice Gogoi said that they would consider an early hearing of the same. The former judge has sought the closure of the contempt case initiated by the top court on November 11.
Requesting the hearing of his application before court closes for Winter vacations, Justice Katju in his application has said, “I am ready to read out the apology before the court”.
A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit had on November 11 issued the notice to Justice Katju as to why contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against him for casting aspersion against the judges in a blog.
Justice Katju was called to the to explain how it (court) had erred in the application of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while setting aside the death sentence of a Kerala man Govindachamy convicted for rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman travelling on a train on February 1, 2011.
Justice Katju in his Facebook post had said that the top court had “grievously erred” in its verdict.
“Supreme Court has grievously erred in law by not holding Govindachamy guilty of murder”, the former judge had said in his facebook post.
Advocating the review of the top court judgment, Justice Katju had in his facebook post had said, “What the Court has overlooked is that section 300 IPC, which defines murder, has 4 parts, and only the first part requires intention to kill.”
He had further said in his facebook post that “If any of the other 3 parts are established, it will be murder even if there was no intention to kill. It is regrettable that the Court has not read section 300 carefully.”
The top court while setting aside the death sentence had also noted the doctors opinion which said that injuries caused by Govindachamy alone could not have been the cause of the death.