TIA NEWS / New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today issued notice to its former judge Justice Markandey Katju as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for casting aspersion against the judges in one of his blogs relating to a case.
The apex court said Justice Katju’s remarks on Justice Gogoi was an assault on three judge bench and it was not criticism of judgment in the Soumya case.
“Don’t give me threats, Mr. Gogoi. Don’t try to be funny with me,” former judge Markandey Katju shouted out loud as a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued him contempt of court notice for his remarks made in his Facebook blogs.
The apex court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit issued notice to Justice Katju, who was present in the court, after showing the copy of the blog to the Attirneuyy General Mukul Rohatgi who said that the highlighted paragraph of the blog was “intemperate” but would not amount to contempt.
This is the first time the apex court has issued such a notice to one of its former judges. Judges Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and Uday Umesh Lalit issued the notice to Justice Katju.
Giving Justice Katju eight weeks time to reply, the bench said that in the blog he had criticised the judges and not the judgment.
This was done after showing a copy of his blog to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who said the highlighted paragraph was “intemperate” but would not amount to contempt.
Apparently displeased over the court decision, Justice Katju asked the bench if this was the way they treated a retired judge whom “you have invited” to the court.
As the judges asked if there was anyone in the court to escort Justice Katju out, he retorted: “Don’t try to scare me. I am not scared of you people.”
Justice Katju was in the court in pursuance of a notice issued to him on October 17 asking him to appear and explain how the court 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.”
Justice Katju had said that top court had erred in setting aside the death sentence merely on the grounds that prosecution could not establish whether deceased woman had jumped from the train or was pushed out of it by the accused.
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.
Defending his position that top court has erred in reading the Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while setting aside the death sentence of Govindachamy, Justice Katju today said that court should not make distinction whether the deceased woman jumped, or was pushed out of compartment or she had just fallen, as she was in a horrible situation.
He said that while deciding a case, besides law there has to be a “common sense” also.
Breaking the skull of the woman above her left eye, and inflicting injuries right upto pituitary glands including deceased losing her 13 teeth and her jumping from the running train could not be compartmentalised and seen separately.
Justice Katju said that act of smashing her face with the wall of the compartment, raping her and her jumping out of the running train has to be seen as one act attributable to Govindachamy.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi echoing the position taken by Justice Katju said, “How can you say that man is not responsible for the suicidal jump by which lady died. The injury (inflicted on her) was very fatal.
“How can the act of causing her grievous injuries, rape and her jumping could be divorced”, asked Attorney General as he urgd the court to further hear the matter.
As Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi supported the position taken by Justice Katju, Justice Gogoi said, “You are asking us to sentence him to death and you are yourself not sure. We have to be 101% sure before we award him death sentence.”