Sumathi Petitioner(S) v. Govindaswamy And Anr. (S), Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The Bench was seized of two sets of review petitions (R.P. (Crl.) Nos. 655-656 of 2016 and R.P. (Crl.) No. D-32189 of 2016) arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1584-1585 of 2014. Arguments by the learned Attorney General for the State of Kerala and by learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner had already concluded. Before pronouncing on those arguments, the Court noted the emergence of a connected development: a publicly-available Facebook post by former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Markandey Katju, criticising the judgment dated 15 September 2016 in the same criminal appeal (relating to the Soumya murder case) and demanding its open-court review. Considering the gravity of a critique coming from a retired member of the Court, the Bench decided to convert the blog post into a suo motu review petition and to deal with that issue first.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the judgment and order dated 15 September 2016 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1584-1585 of 2014 suffer from a fundamental flaw warranting exercise of the Court’s review jurisdiction.

Whether, and to what extent, the critique articulated by Justice Markandey Katju identifies errors under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code that the Court must rectify in review.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. The Court acknowledged that extensive submissions had already been heard on the pending review petitions, yet refrained from issuing a ruling because a “connected issue” had intervened.

2. That connected issue was the public statement by Justice Katju asserting that the Bench had “grievously erred in law” by failing to convict the accused for murder under Section 300 IPC—specifically pointing out that parts II–IV of Section 300 do not require an intention to kill.

3. Given the stature of the commentator as a former judge of the Supreme Court, the Bench held that his view deserved “the greatest of respect and consideration.”

4. To address the critique transparently and comprehensively, the Court deemed it appropriate to treat the Facebook post itself as a petition for review, instituted suo motu. Accordingly, it directed the registry to create a new review matter.

5. Ensuring procedural fairness, the Court issued notice to Justice Katju, requesting his personal appearance on 11 November 2016 at 2:00 p.m., so that he might elaborate on the alleged legal errors and assist the Court in determining whether its earlier judgment is indeed vitiated.

6. Finally, the Bench sought administrative facilitation from the Chief Justice of India to assemble the same Bench on the specified date and time.

Holding and Implications

NOTICE ISSUED AND SUO MOTU REVIEW PETITION REGISTERED.

Direct Effect: The Registry must create a suo motu review petition; Justice Markandey Katju is summoned to participate in an open-court hearing scheduled for 11 November 2016. The outcome of the substantive review remains pending.

Broader Implications: While no new legal precedent is set at this preliminary stage, the order signals the Court’s willingness to entertain critiques from former judges and highlights the importance of public accountability and doctrinal accuracy in criminal jurisprudence.

Sumathi Petitioner(S) v. Govindaswamy And Anr. (S)

1. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the State of Kerala in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 655-656 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 and Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner in Review Petition (Criminal) No. D.NO. 32189 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014.

2. Though arguments have been elaborate and stands concluded we do not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the contentions advanced at this stage. This is so because we are of the view that a connected issue which has arisen needs to be resolved in the first instance.

3. A Former Judge of this Court Justice Markandey Katju in a blog published on Facebook has expressed an opinion that the judgment and order dated 15 September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 needs to be reviewed in an open Court hearing. Such a view coming from a retired Judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration. We, therefore, reproduce herein below the blog published by Justice Katju in Facebook and convert the same into a suo motu review petition.

“Markandey Katju

September 16 at 11:41 a.m.

The Malayalam T.V. channel Asianet just now took my interview on the Soumya murder case.

I said that the Supreme Court has grievously erred in law by not holding Govindachamy guilty of murder. The Court held that since it has not been proved that the accused had intention to kill he cannot be held guilty of murder. What the Court has overlooked is that section 300 IPC, which defines murder, has 4 parts, and only the first part requires intention to kill. If any of the other 3 parts are established, it will be murder even if there was no intention to kill. It is regrettable that the Court has not read section 300 carefully. The judgment needs to be reviewed in an open court hearing.”

4. Office to register a suo motu review petition.

5. We issue notice to Justice Markandey Katju, former judge of this Court and request him to appear in Court in person and participate in the proceedings on 11 November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. as to whether the judgment and order dated 15 September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1584-1585 of 2014 suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction.

6. We request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to make this Bench available on 11 November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m.

7. Office to act accordingly.

R.P. (Crl.) D 32189/2016, Crl.A. No. 1584-1585/2014, (With Appln.(s) for Application for Permission to File Review Petition), R.P. (Crl) No. 655-656/2016, Crl.A. No. 1584-1585/2014, [With Appln.(s) for Exemption from Filing Official English Translation and Oral Hearing]

Sumathi Petitioner(S) v. Govindaswamy And Anr. (S)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sumathi Petitioner(S) v. Govindaswamy And Anr. (S)

Comments