No one in the packed courtroom number six of the Supreme Court anticipated the climatic twist to the intense, two-hour drama on Friday. A three-judge bench that was calmly listening to their former colleague Markandey Katju’s views about their verdict of a murder case changed their tone in a matter of seconds.
“Don’t try to be funny with me, Mr Gogoi. Do not issue threats to me,” Katju, a former Supreme Court judge, retorted as Justice Ranjan Gogoi dictated the orders in the open court, initiating contempt proceedings against him.
Katju had been invited to court by the judges for a discussion on its verdict on the rape and murder of a woman in Kochi 2011. After the court on September 15 commuted the death sentence of the man convicted in the case to seven years imprisonment, Katju wrote on Facebook that the verdict was a “grave error” made by judges who “had been in the legal world for decades”. A bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant and UU Lalit took suo motu cognisance of his views and asked him to discuss his opinion with them.
But when Katju was ordered to remain silent during the proceedings, he did not. “I was your senior in the bench,” he told Justice Gogoi. This clearly upset the judge, who asked the court security to escort Katju out. As murmurs of people saying “wrong, wrong” filled the court, the eviction was halted after an intervention from Justice Uday Lalit, who was part of the bench.
Clad in a dark blue suit and a red tie and coughing constantly during the course of his arguments, Katju did not hold back. “Learn to be modest Mr Gogoi,” he shouted. “This is not the way a Supreme Court judge should behave. Do not provoke me.” The judges stood up and exited the hall, leaving Katju red-faced.
Unprecedented decision
This was the first time in the Indian judicial history that a former Supreme Court judge has been issued notices for contempt. The charge was that his Facebook posts assaulted the dignity of judges.
Friday afternoon began with the exhibition of much camaraderie and wit. Justice Gogoi was especially candid and humorous and acknowledged every point that was made. He even thanked Katju for accepting the court’s request and appearing before the bench.
Before he started to make his points at 2.10 pm, Katju said judges were indeed humans and were bound to make mistakes. He recollected one such error he made when he was in the Supreme Court, of which Justice Gogoi said he was aware: “We read your judgments every day, Justice Katju. You do not have to worry.” The bench gave him 30 minutes. Katju sought an hour. The proceedings lasted two hours.
The Soumya murder case rocked Kerala in 2011. On February 1 that year, 23-year-old Soumya was assaulted on a moving train by a man named Govindasamy. He repeatedly smashed her head on the walls of the compartment. She fell off the train, which did not stop the assault. The grievously injured woman was then raped by the accused. She died in hospital.
The Supreme Court set aside murder charges against the accused based on the accounts of witnesses. However, these accounts were not direct. Two persons told the trial court that they heard another mid-aged man saying he saw Soumya jump out of the compartment and that she was alive when she did so. Relying on Section 6 of the Evidence Act, the statements of these witnesses were admitted.
Katju’s argument was that this hearsay evidence should have been dismissed.
Secondly, the nature of injuries on Soumya also had a bearing on the case. The medical reports suggested that the injuries to the head that was the result of the assault inside the compartment may not have been sufficient to kill her. The injuries from the fall played a major role. Since there was no direct evidence to suggest Govindasamy was pushed her out of the train and cause the injury from the fall, he could not be held guilty for murder.
Katju was particularly scathing on the second issue on Friday. While the bench made a distinction between the first and second set of injuries, Katju begged to differ.
‘It’s common sense’
“There is also something called common sense,” he said tersely. “ You should remember common sense.” The resulted in giggles in the courtroom, now overflowing with mostly young lawyers and media persons. Even at this juncture, the judges did not lose their cool and tried to drive the arguments back to the case.
Katju claimed the court had grievously erred in concluding that the accused had no intention to kill. Whether the woman jumped out of the train on her own was immaterial. “A situation of fear was created where she must have felt there was no other option but to jump,” Katju noted. Thus, the accused was responsible for creating this situation and by extension for the death.
However, the bench refused to accept the arguments. Among the three judges, it was Justice Lalit who posed a series of questions to Katju and Rohatgi. Unlike a case of suicide involving domestic violence, he said the Evidence Act does not provide a presumptive clause for culpable homicide. In other words, a case of culpable homicide cannot be proved on presumption.
After dismissing the review petition, Justice Gogoi told Katju to stand up. The former judge was given copies of his own Facebook post.
Katju was asked for his own comments about the posts. “My Lord, I think this is a free country and I am entitled to say what I want,” he replied in a soft tone.
Going by Katju’s unfazed reactions on Friday, it is clear that the curtain has not been drawn down on this courtroom drama.