BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

Justice (Retd) Markandey Katju (Petitioner)

V

The Lok Sabha and Anr (Respondents)

TEAM 11

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

ANUPAM M G 15 ANJITA T A 14

MEGHA V R 51 AKSHAY FRANCIS 84

VARNA LISTON 81 AZAD SUNIL 87

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 10.03.205 the former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Markandey Katju, published a post

on his Facebook page in respect of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation. The post

was entitled Gandhi A British Agent and stated that Mahatma Gandhi did great harm to

India. On the same date another post was published by Justice katju on his Facebook

page in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose referring to him as an agent of the

Japanese Fascism

On 11.03.2015, a discussion took place in the Rajya Sabha, regarding the posts of

the petitioner and a resolution was moved by the chairman of Rajya Sabha, which was

passed unanimously by the house. On the next day, a discussion took place regarding the

alleged posts and a resolution was passed condemning the statement of the petitioner.

On 23.03.2015, justice katju sent emails to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and the Speaker,

stating that the aforesaid resolutions were passed against him without giving him an

opportunity of being heard and thus violative of the Natural Justice Principle, since the

petitioner does not receive any response from either the chairman of the Rajya Sabha or

the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Thus, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble court by

way of writ petition for questioning the aforesaid resolutions.

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I) Whether the impugned resolution violate the petitioners right to speech and
expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India.

II) Whether condemning a private individual who has made a dissenting opinion comes
within the Parliamentary Privilege under Article 105?

III) Whether the Parliament was under a legal obligation to abide by Natural Justice
Principle (Audi Alterum Partum) while passing the impugned resolution?