Soumya rape, murder case: SC issues contempt notice to Markandey Katju over his blogs

High drama took place inside the court room where Katju told the apex court he wasn't afraid of the judges and that they should learn to be modest.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: November 11, 2016 7:25 pm
Markandey Katju, Markandey Katju notice, Markandey Katju supreme court, Markandey Katju SC, Markandey Katju contempt notice, Markandey Katju blogs, Soumya, Soumya murder case, Soumya rape murder case, india news Ex-judge Markandey Katju walks out of SC after being issued a contempt notice over his blogs in connection with Soumya case. (Source: Express photo)

The Supreme Court on Friday issued contempt notice to former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju over his blogs criticising “the judges and not judgment” in Soumya rape and murder case. The top court dismissed the review petition against the verdict junking the death penalty for convict in Soumya’s murder case. High drama took place inside the court room where Katju told the apex court he wasn’t afraid of the judges and that they should learn to be modest. Due to his behaviour, Justice R Gogoi, asked security to remove Katju from the courtroom after he criticised the judge for “threatening”.

WATCH:

Earlier, last month, the Supreme Court had asked its former judge Markandey Katju to show up on November 11 and justify his blog, which had described the court judgment as legally flawed in setting aside the death penalty of the convict in Kerala’s Soumya rape and murder case.

A bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi converted Katju’s blog into a suo motu review petition and said, “We issue notice to Justice Markandey Katju, former judge of this Court and request him to appear in Court inperson and participate in the proceedings on 11th November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. as to whether the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2016 passed by this bench suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction.”

Katju, in his Facebook post on September 16, had criticised the judgment, saying it needed to be reviewed in open court since it was “regrettable that the court has not read Section 300 carefully.” Section 300 of the IPC defines murder.