Justice Katju offers to apologise 'unconditionally' to Supreme Court for criticising judges, verdict
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju on Friday offered to tender an unconditional apology in a contempt case for criticising judges and their judgment in the sensational Saumya rape-murder case.
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju on Friday offered to tender an unconditional apology in a contempt case for criticising judges and their judgment in the sensational Saumya rape-murder case.
As per the report, Katju's lawyer on Friday told the court that the former Supreme Court judge was ready to tender an unconditional apology on the matter.
In an application, that was mentioned on Friday before a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Katju said that he has deleted all the Facebook posts and respects the judicial process and judiciary in the rape-murder case.
After senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan mentioned the application for an early hearing, Justice Gogoi said that they would consider an early hearing of the same.
Requesting the hearing of his application before court closes for winter vacations, Justice Katju, in the application, has said: "I am ready to read out the apology before the court."
A bench of Justice Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit had on November 11 issued a notice to Justice Katju as to why contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against him for casting aspersion against the judges in his social media pages.
Initially, Katju was asked by the court to appear personally and assist the court during the hearing of the review petition. At the end of the hearing, the court dismissed the review petition and issued a notice of contempt to Justice Katju.
Justice Katju had said that top court had erred in setting aside the death sentence merely on the grounds that prosecution could not establish whether the victim had jumped from the train or was pushed out of it by the assailant.
The top court, while setting aside the death sentence, had also noted the doctors' opinion which said that injuries caused by the assailant alone could not have been the cause of the death.