•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 2-minute read

SC says Katju v Parliament has no prima facie case, seeks help of Nariman & AG [Read Order]

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in
download-order                               SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                           Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 504/2015JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU                                           Petitioner(s)  VERSUSTHE LOK SABHA & ANR.                                                     
Respondent(s)  (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report)  
Date : 03/08/2015
This petition was called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rehman,Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat,Adv. For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RWe have heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, at some length.
The writ petition does not, in our prima facie view, disclose the violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner to warrant our interference. Mr. Subramaniam all the same argues that the questions raised by him need to be considered at some length especially in the context of freedom of speech of the citizens, the right of an individual to protect his reputation and the supremacy of the Constitution of India.
He submits that he would like to argue the matter in detail by reference to the decisions of this Court.The Resolutions passed by the two Houses of Parliament do not appear to us to be depriving the petitioner of his freedom of speech, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
So also, the strong disapproval of or disagreement by the Parliament with the views expressed by the petitioner in public domain, does not appear to be injuring his reputation so as to be actionable in a court. Having said that we see no reason to deny to Mr. Subramaniam a fuller opportunity to debate the points which he appears to be keen to canvass.
Assistance of Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, as Amicus and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, will only add to the contents of the debate being invited by Mr. Subramaniam, who is agreeable to serve copies of the writ petition upon both of them. The Registry shall convey to Mr. Nariman and Mr. Rohatgi our request soliciting their assistance in the matter. Post again after two weeks.(MAHABIR SINGH) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Read about the case in Detail:

Original author: Mohit Singh

No comments yet: share your views