The Supreme Court on Thursday is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on a batch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI judge B.H. Loya
The Supreme Court on Thursday is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on a batch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI judge B.H. Loya.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud heard the petitions amidst criticism that the Supreme Court intends to “throw away” the PILs.
Judge Loya was the Special CBI judge hearing the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was once an accused. Mr. Shah was discharged from the case by Judge Loya's successor judge.
Chief Justice Misra had, while hearing the petitions in a series of marathon sessions, assured the petitioners about the “highest amount of seriousness” with which the court is examining their plea, even calling it a “cause”.
“We give this the highest amount of seriousness. We treat it like a cause. We do not care what is said outside, but we will do our duty if any fact arouses our suspicion,” Chief Justice Misra had assured petitioners' counsel, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Indira Jaising, during a February hearing.
The court had said that if there was any suspicion of foul play requiring further investigation, it would order a probe.
The court had gone through all the records and evidence placed before it by both the petitioners and the State of Maharashtra, which had ordered a "discreet enquiry" after articles appeared in a magazine last year quoting some family members of the judge who voiced suspicion about the circumstances of the death at Nagpur in 2014 where he had gone to attend a wedding.
Mr. Dave had criticised the procedure followed by the Bench in hearing the PILs as “not desirable”. He said neither had the Bench issued formal notice to the State nor had it sought affidavits from any of the witnesses, including the four judges - two of whom are presently sitting Bombay High Court judges – who had accompanied Judge Loya.
He had emphasised there was no politics or political motives, as alleged by Maharashtra's lead counsel and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, behind these PILs.
The Loya PILs had caused embarrassment within the Supreme Court judiciary when the four senior most Supreme Court judges – Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had mentioned them while expressing reservations, in their unprecedented press conference of January 12, about the allocation of select cases to preferred Benches in the apex court.
Mr. Rohatgi had argued that the PILs were fuelled by “oblique political motives” and was timed shortly after an earlier writ petition, filed by activist Harsh Mander, seeking a review of the discharge of Mr. Shah was dismissed by the apex court.
Mr. Rohatgi argued that this was not a criminal appeal and the magazine article which raised suspicions about the death of Loya was “baseless and concocted”. He raised doubts about why the PILs were filed over three years after the judge's death.
Mr. Dave said the entire case of the Maharashtra that Loya died an “accidental death” due to cardiac arrest hinged entirely on the statements made by the four judges who had accompanied him to Nagpur. Mr. Dave had earlier applied to “cross-examine” these judges. Mr. Dave had informed the court that he was even under “pressure” from the Bar Council of India because of what he perceived to be due to his involvement with the Loya case.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud heard the petitions amidst criticism that the Supreme Court intends to “throw away” the PILs.
Judge Loya was the Special CBI judge hearing the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was once an accused. Mr. Shah was discharged from the case by Judge Loya's successor judge.
Chief Justice Misra had, while hearing the petitions in a series of marathon sessions, assured the petitioners about the “highest amount of seriousness” with which the court is examining their plea, even calling it a “cause”.
“We give this the highest amount of seriousness. We treat it like a cause. We do not care what is said outside, but we will do our duty if any fact arouses our suspicion,” Chief Justice Misra had assured petitioners' counsel, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Indira Jaising, during a February hearing.
The court had said that if there was any suspicion of foul play requiring further investigation, it would order a probe.
The court had gone through all the records and evidence placed before it by both the petitioners and the State of Maharashtra, which had ordered a "discreet enquiry" after articles appeared in a magazine last year quoting some family members of the judge who voiced suspicion about the circumstances of the death at Nagpur in 2014 where he had gone to attend a wedding.
Mr. Dave had criticised the procedure followed by the Bench in hearing the PILs as “not desirable”. He said neither had the Bench issued formal notice to the State nor had it sought affidavits from any of the witnesses, including the four judges - two of whom are presently sitting Bombay High Court judges – who had accompanied Judge Loya.
He had emphasised there was no politics or political motives, as alleged by Maharashtra's lead counsel and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, behind these PILs.
The Loya PILs had caused embarrassment within the Supreme Court judiciary when the four senior most Supreme Court judges – Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had mentioned them while expressing reservations, in their unprecedented press conference of January 12, about the allocation of select cases to preferred Benches in the apex court.
Mr. Rohatgi had argued that the PILs were fuelled by “oblique political motives” and was timed shortly after an earlier writ petition, filed by activist Harsh Mander, seeking a review of the discharge of Mr. Shah was dismissed by the apex court.
Mr. Rohatgi argued that this was not a criminal appeal and the magazine article which raised suspicions about the death of Loya was “baseless and concocted”. He raised doubts about why the PILs were filed over three years after the judge's death.
Mr. Dave said the entire case of the Maharashtra that Loya died an “accidental death” due to cardiac arrest hinged entirely on the statements made by the four judges who had accompanied him to Nagpur. Mr. Dave had earlier applied to “cross-examine” these judges. Mr. Dave had informed the court that he was even under “pressure” from the Bar Council of India because of what he perceived to be due to his involvement with the Loya case.