The Supreme Court on Monday felt that the Parliament did no wrong in condemning Justice Markandey Katju for calling Mahatma Gandhi a British agent.
Referring to Gandhi as a British agent and Subhas Chandra Bose as a Japanese agent, Katju provoked widespread criticism resulting in both the Houses of Parliament adopting a resolution to strongly condemn the statements by the former SC judge as “deplorable”. Katju approached the apex court claiming that Parliament’s public condemnation was a “slur” on his reputation and Freedom of Speech. Before doing so, Parliament failed to issue him notice under the Rules of Business.
The Bench of Justices TS Thakur, V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi refused to accept Katju’s petition as they failed to see which of his Fundamental Rights had been taken away by the Parliament resolution. “What is the effect of the resolutionIJ Does it prevent you from once again saying what you saidIJ Parliament is entitled to place on record its disapproval of what is said in public domain,” said the Bench.
For Katju, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted that if a private citizen criticises, it is understandable but when an institution such as Parliament issues a condemnation, it must follow the canons of principle, referring to the Rules of Business.
The Bench was of the prima facie view that condemnation by Parliament was no different from individual condemnation. It said, “Justice Katju is entitled to think Gandhi is an agent. But when you make it public, you must be mentally prepared for this criticism as people may not agree with your view.” The court asked Subramanium, “What he has written will it not amount to defamationIJ”
Subramanium argued whether the courts would pass a judicial order against the said article without hearing Katju. What the Parliament did, in his opinion, injured his client’s reputation, an essential facet of right to life, Subramanium added. This prompted the Bench to ask, “Is this the view of Justice Katju or it has been advised by you,” as it decided to delve into the issue whether the Parliament resolution was a breach of either the Right to Speech or Right to Reputation.
The Bench sought assistance of senior advocate Fali Nariman and Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi in the matter.