New Delhi: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court on Monday summoned one of its former judges, Markandey Katju, to appear in person before it to point out the “fundamental flaws“, as claimed by him in the sensational Soumya rape case.
“He (Justice Katju) is a respected gentleman. We request him to come in person and debate his Facebook post criticising the judgment. Let him come to the court and let’s debate over the fundamental flaws in our verdict,” a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and U U Lalit said and issued a notice to Justice Katju.
ALSO READ: NewsMobile EXCLUSIVE: Donald Trump ‘locker room’ conversations, Trump speaks out
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was assisting the top court in the matter, said: “I think it is for the first time that the Supreme Court has asked its former judge to appear in person before it in connection with any matter”.
In his Facebook post, Justice Katju had criticised the apex court saying it had grievously erred by “not holding” the convict, Govindachamy, “guilty of murder” in the case.
The bench also kept the review petitions filed by Kerala and Soumya’s mother in abeyance saying it would debate with Justice Katju on his facebook post.
“Though arguments have been elaborate and stand concluded, we do not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the contentions advanced at this stage. This is so because we are of the view that a connected issue which has arisen needs to be resolved in the first instance,” the bench said referring to the blog of Justice Katju.
“Such a view coming from a retired judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration. Office to register a suo motu review petition,” the bench said in its order.
ALSO READ: #BRICS: India, Brazil finalise text of bilateral investment pact
“We issue notice to Justice Markandey Katju, former judge of this Court and request him to appear in Court in person and participate in the proceedings on November 11…as to whether the judgment and order dated September 15 passed by this Bench…suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction,” the bench said.