Supreme Court reluctant to entertain Katju’s petition challenging condemnation in Parl.

The Supreme Court today expressed a strong disinclination to entertain retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju’s petition challenging resolutions passed by the Parliament condemning him..The Parliament had passed resolutions condemning Katju for his article in which he had dubbed Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose as British agents..Katju had challenged the same and filed a petition in the Supreme Court contending that they were passed without following the rules governing the Parliament proceedings and were violative of his rights under Article 14, 19 and 21..Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for Katju today..When the matter was taken up as item 9 in court 2, Subramanium sought to allege violation of freedom of speech and expression, but the Bench presided by Justice Thakur asked Subramanium whether the resolutions have taken away any right of Katju. Justice Thakur said,.“Mr. Subramanium…There is a guaranteed right of freedom of speech. The question is whether that has been taken away.”.“The Parliament has passed a resolution condemning me”, said Subramanium..“How does a condemnation of a statement made by a citizen affect freedom of speech? If you are free to say something, are they not?”, asked Justice Thakur..“Not in an institutional setup your lordship”, was Subramanium’s reply..“If an individual can condemn what you wrote, then why not an institution”, Justice Thakur queried..Subramanium then sought to bring in the resolutions under the purview of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code but the court turned that down..“If you can express your views on a public forum, you should be ready for criticism”, the court said..“There is a very important Constitutional question involved in the matter. When an institution takes cognizance of a statement made by a citizen in exercise of free speech, then there is a procedure to be followed in doing it”, argued Subramanium..“So you are saying you should have been called to the Parliament and given a hearing before passing the resolution”, asked Justice Thakur..“Absolutely. I can’t be condemned at all except in accordance with law”, replied Subramanium..The Court then proceeded to appoint Fali Nariman as Amicus Curiae and also asked the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to present his views in the matter and adjourned the case. However, it did not issue notice to respondents.