JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU Vs. THE LOK SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We 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.

(2.) 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 Art. 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.

(3.) Post again after two weeks.