Why in news?
The former judge, in his Facebook post, alleged that both Houses of Parliament condemned him for his statements (under Rule 171) "calling Gandhi a British agent, and Subhas Chandra Bose a Japanese agent" without even giving him a hearing.
What is Katju's agrument?
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are not competent to take cognizance of the expressions of free speech of the private person like the petitioner (Katju), as the power under Rule 171 of the Lok Sabha Rules provides that the resolution must relate to act of Government. Thus the Impugned Resolution do not fulfill the jurisdictional requirement, and the necessary jurisdictional facts are lacking.
[Source: Firstpost]
The former judge, in his Facebook post, alleged that both Houses of Parliament condemned him for his statements (under Rule 171) "calling Gandhi a British agent, and Subhas Chandra Bose a Japanese agent" without even giving him a hearing.
What is Katju's agrument?
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are not competent to take cognizance of the expressions of free speech of the private person like the petitioner (Katju), as the power under Rule 171 of the Lok Sabha Rules provides that the resolution must relate to act of Government. Thus the Impugned Resolution do not fulfill the jurisdictional requirement, and the necessary jurisdictional facts are lacking.
[Source: Firstpost]
0 comments:
Post a Comment