<p>Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju on Monday approached the apex court seeking a direction to quash the resolution passed by Parliament condemning him for his remarks against Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Katju, who described Gandhi and Bose as British and Japanese agents respectively in his blog on March 10, contended that his comments made as private person were academic in nature and manifestation of scientific temper.<br /><br />“If the resolutions are not struck down, then it would have chilling effect on free speech, and hindering a critical and independent academic engagement with the history of both pre and post-independent India, and its key personalities,” he said.<br /><br />He claimed that the resolution passed on March 11 and 12 were in contravention of his fundamental rights of equality, freedom of speech and life and liberty, besides being in violation of the Rules for Procedure and Business framed under Article 118 of the Constitution.<br /><br />“The rules do not contemplate passing of a resolution against a private person not holding an official position, the resolution cannot claim any immunity from judicial review. In the instant case, the question of claim of privilege does not arise at all,” he said, adding Parliament lacked competence to pass such resolution.<br /><br />Justice Katju, former chairman of Press Council of India, cited various apex court verdicts, to claim that the move had harmed his reputation.</p>
<p>Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju on Monday approached the apex court seeking a direction to quash the resolution passed by Parliament condemning him for his remarks against Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Katju, who described Gandhi and Bose as British and Japanese agents respectively in his blog on March 10, contended that his comments made as private person were academic in nature and manifestation of scientific temper.<br /><br />“If the resolutions are not struck down, then it would have chilling effect on free speech, and hindering a critical and independent academic engagement with the history of both pre and post-independent India, and its key personalities,” he said.<br /><br />He claimed that the resolution passed on March 11 and 12 were in contravention of his fundamental rights of equality, freedom of speech and life and liberty, besides being in violation of the Rules for Procedure and Business framed under Article 118 of the Constitution.<br /><br />“The rules do not contemplate passing of a resolution against a private person not holding an official position, the resolution cannot claim any immunity from judicial review. In the instant case, the question of claim of privilege does not arise at all,” he said, adding Parliament lacked competence to pass such resolution.<br /><br />Justice Katju, former chairman of Press Council of India, cited various apex court verdicts, to claim that the move had harmed his reputation.</p>
