Gopal Subramanium may represent Markandey Katju J. in challenge to Parliament’s resolutions

In a fresh salvo, retired Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju has filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking quashing of resolutions passed by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha condemning him for his remarks about Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose..Justice Markandey Katju has contended that the Parliament’s resolutions have violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and 21. The Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and Secretary Generals of both the Houses have been impleaded as respondents..The details regarding the petition have been published by Katju himself on his blog..The controversy has its origin in Katju’s remarks about Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose on his blog and facebook page. He had called Gandhi a “British agent” who had furthered the British policy of divide and rule by alienating Muslims from national movement. Regarding Bose, he had said that Bose ended up perpetuating Japanese imperial interests in India..Subsequently, both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha had passed resolutions on March 11 and March 12 respectively condemning Justice Katju’s statements..Justice Markandey Katju has alleged that the said resolutions are in violation of his fundamental rights and also impinge the Rules for Procedure and Business framed by both houses of the Parliament under Article 118 of the Constitution..As per the petition,.“Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are not competent to take cognizance of the expressions of free speech of the private person like the Petitioner, as the power under Rule 171 of the Lok Sabha Rules provides that the Resolution must relate to act of Government. In any event, the Houses of the Parliament ought not to take cognizance of academic discussions or seeds of academic discussions in public about issues confronting India’s history..Rule 172 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Lok Sabha only permits resolution in the matter of ‘general public interest’ and the works of the Petitioner reflected in the posts relate to his academic analysis which are not of general public interest.”.Likewise, he has relied on Rule 156 with respect to Rajya Sabha and contended that the,.“Impugned Resolution do not fulfil the jurisdictional requirement, and the necessary jurisdictional facts are lacking. The present case is not a case of mere procedural irregularity. Further, whether or not the Petitioner’s statement are deplorable or condemnable can only be judged by bodies performing judicial function and cannot be decided by the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.”.Justice Markandey Katju has then contended violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. Regarding violation of right to equality guaranteed by Article 14, he has contended that the “passage of the resolution condemning a statement, without even placing in its entirety before the respective houses of Parliament and without even giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard is both arbitrary and in denial of natural justice.”.He has also submitted that after the passage of the Resolutions, he wrote to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha seeking “at least a post-decisional hearing” but he received no response for the same..With respect to the freedoms under Article 19(1) (a), he has submitted that his comments “would definitely not fall under any of the defined categories for which ‘reasonable restrictions’ could have been placed, thereby making the passing of the aforesaid resolutions an illegal curtailment of the Petitioners’ right to freedom of speech & expression.” He has also extensively relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal in which the Court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional..He has contended violation of Article 21 on the ground that,.“The right to preserve and protect one’s reputation and the right to being heard before being adversely commented are integral part of Article 21 as held repeatedly by this Hon’ble Court in many different contexts.”.Based on the above, he has sought for quashing of the impugned resolutions or for a direction to the Respondents to give him a “post-decisional hearing”..The blog states that Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium would conduct the case before the Supreme Court..Image of Justice Markandey Katju taken from here.