[Exclusive] Loya Case Judgment Tomorrow: Read The Summary Of High Voltage Hearing

The judgment in the string of writ petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI special judge B. H. Loya is scheduled to be pronounced on Thursday morning by the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar.The bench had reserved its verdict on March 16.Here is the summary of the marathon hearing in the CaseDay 1 After initially being placed before a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, the petitions were listed for hearing before the bench headed by Chief Justice Misra.The bench had directed the transfer to itself of the similar writ petitions by the Bombay Lawyers’ Association and one Suryakant Lodge pending before the Bombay High Court, besides ordering the Bombay High Court as well as all other High Courts to not entertain any petitions where the fact in issue is identical to the present petitions.Read the Full Report HereDay 2 Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, Indira Jaising and V. Giri had advanced submissions on behalf of the Bombay Lawyers’ Association, an intervenor and Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla respectively in the course of the eventful hearing.Mr. Dave had submitted, “I have a prepared a note in respect of the report of the commissioner of intelligence of the state of Maharashtra which requires immediate consideration. The report is a bundle of contradictions. We pray that the report be brought on record by way of affidavit so that we can initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr. P. C.”Ms. Jaising had also prayed that the register of Ravi Bhavan, the ECG report if any performed and the complete statement of registrar R. Rathi in which three sentences are missing be filed.Read the Full Report HereDay 3Mr. Dave had exclaimed, “I will be filing an application under Order 9 of the Supreme Court Rules to seek permission to cross examine these judicial officers. There is a judgment to that effect”.Senior Counsel Pallav Sisodia, representing Mumbai based journalist Bandhuraj Sambhaji Lone, had concluded a brief submission, asserting, “This exercise is like an independent inquiry as Your Lordships are seeing everything”.Ms. Jaising had commenced her arguments with the remark, “If Mr. Sisodia’s client did not want an inquiry, then why was the petition filed?”, which had incited a war of words between the counsel.Read the Full Report HereDay 4 In response to Ms. Jaising’s submissions, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the state of Maharashtra had remarked, “Ms. Jaising is seeking an investigation but she has not done any homework. She is talking about the transfer of judge Utpat, the Sohrabuddin trial, the story in the Caravan? Why is the letter of the retired Bombay High Court judge being relied upon? It was written after the story in the Caravan was published. Is this a PIL?”“Are you trying to say I have a motive? Fine”, Ms. Jaising had retorted.Read the Full Report HereDay 5 Mr. Rohatgi had advanced submissions on the maintainability of PILs based on newspaper reports, the contents of the present petitions and the affidavits and the credentials of the petitionersRead the Full Report HereDay 6 Mr. Rohatgi had reiterated the sequence of events leading to the death by heart attack of judge Loya, adding, “Attempts at resuscitation were made at the Meditrina Hospital upon which judge Loya was pronounced as having been brought dead. The post mortem was directed as he had not died under the care of the hospital. Four judicial officers have confirmed this by a letter on their own letterheads, and in one case, in his own hand. These are letters written of their own accord and not in an interrogation. The High Court judges who reached the hospital at around 7 AM on the date of the death have also affirmed the same. The post mortem was conducted at 10 AM at a government hospital, after which the body was sent to judge Loya’s hometown. It is all contemporaneous”.Commencing his rejoinder arguments, Mr. Dave had advanced, “The manner in which this matter is proceeding is not satisfactory. The matter cannot be thrown out at this stage...the pleadings need to be complete, otherwise, how will I controvert? The Supreme Court Rules require all statements to be on affidavit...a mere report cannot be taken on record...I am not sure why the court is reluctant to issue notice to the state to file affidavit. The court cannot allow these documents to be exchanged across the bar. These four judicial officers must be asked to come on affidavit. If they refuse, then there is a problem”Read the Full Report HereDay 7 Mr. Dave had remarked, “In the past also, mysterious circumstances have surrounded judges who have stood in the path of the respondents, like Justice Patel in respect of the Ishrat Jahan encounter, while those who have acted in accordance with them have been rewarded”, which was followed by a war of words between himself and the counsel for the respondents.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, having filed an...

[Exclusive] Loya Case Judgment Tomorrow: Read The Summary Of High Voltage Hearing

Mehal Jain

Tags