In Re-Blog Published by Justice Markandey Katju Dated 17th September, 2016-Titled “Soumya Murder Case”

November 26, 2021

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2016

Contempt of Court — Suo motu contempt petition by Supreme Court — Publication of certain blogs by Justice Markandey Katju in connection with the Judgment delivered by Supreme Court in certain murder case — Offending statements in the blogs found to the effect such as, “how could the Court rely on the hearsay evidence — This was a grave error in the judgment, not expected of judges who had been in the legal world for decades.” and “Justice Gogoi, who is in line to become the Chief Justice of India on the basis of seniority, has shown that he does not know an elementary principle of law, namely that hearsay evidence is not admissible” — Held, reference to the author of the Judgment must necessarily include the other members of the Bench and, therefore, prima facie, the statements made seem to be an attack on the Judges and not on the Judgment — Resultantly, notice of contempt directed to be issued to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be drawn up against Justice Markandey Katju (Paras 2 to 4)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2016

In Re-

Blog Published by Justice Markandey Katju Dated 17^th September, 2016-Titled “Soumya Murder Case”

And

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2016

In Re –

Blog Published by Justice Markandey Katju Dated 18^th September, 2016- Titled “The Intellectual Level of Supreme Court Judges”

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2016 and Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2016, decided on November 11, 2016

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. By separate order passed today we have dismissed Review Petition Nos. 655-656/2016 and D. No. 32189/2016 and the Suo Motu Review Petitions in “RE BLOG PUBLISHED BY JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU ON SEPTEMBER 06, 2016 at 11.41 A.M. (contents quoted in the Court’s order dated 17.10.2016 in R.P.D. No. 32189/2016).”

2. We have drawn the attention of Justice Markandey Katju to certain statements made in two other blogs published by him in connection with the judgment of this Court review of which had been sought in the above mentioned two review petitions and has been refused. The relevant part of the same are extracted below:

“But the statements of PW4 and PW 40 were hearsay evidence. PW4 and PW40 do not say that they themselves saw Saumya jumping off the train. And hearsay evidence is inadmissible in evidence vide Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, except in certain limited circumstances e.g. a dying declaration or opinion of an expert. None of those limited circumstances existed in this case. So how could the Court rely on this hearsay evidence? This was a grave error in the judgment, not expected of judges who had been in the legal world for decades. Even a student of law in a law college knows this elementary principle that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.”

In RE – THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES” dated 18^th September, 2016:

“Justice Gogoi, who is in line to become the Chief Justice of India on the basis of seniority, has shown that he does not know an elementary principle of law, namely that hearsay evidence is not admissible (see paragraph 16 of his judgment in the Soumya murder case).”

3. Reference to the author of the judgment must necessarily include the other members of the Bench. Prima facie, the statements made seem to be an attack on the Judges and not on the judgment.

4. We therefore, issue notice of contempt to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be drawn up against Justice Markandey Katju and he be appropriately dealt with.

5. Notice is returnable after eight weeks.

———

You may also like