The review petition filed by Bombay Lawyers Association before the Supreme Court is listed at serial number 1006 before the three-judge bench of the Chief justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar.
BLA had sought review and recall of the judgment of the same bench wherein an independent probe into the death of Judge Loya was declined.
It was the case of the petitioners that the Supreme Court had erred in relying on the statements of District Judges and concluded that Judge Loya suffered a heart attack in presence of his colleagues. The petition relies on various news reports published in the Caravan magazine and The Wire that try to examine the “mysterious circumstances” around Judge Loya’s death.
The petition questions the enquiry report relied upon by the Supreme Court in dismissing the earlier petition.
“The only defence put forward on behalf of State of Maharashtra was the unaffirmed report of an enquiry held by a Police Officer, Commissioner of State Intelligence. This document was the sole basis of State’s stand before this Hon’ble Court and yet it was not placed along with an affidavit on behalf of the State.”
Petitioner association questioned the permission granted by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for recording of statements of the four judges within a single day.
However, Justice Chandrachud had noted that the petitioners had launched a “frontal attack” on the statements of these four judicial officers. Court said-
“We are unable to subscribe to this line of submissions. The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court granted permission to the Commissioner of the State Intelligence Department to record the say of the four judicial officers. The matter was of importance …
There was no reason for the four judicial officers to procrastinate or delay the submission of their statements. There is no basis whatsoever to make any imputation against the four officers of the state judiciary.”
The Court added-
“The four judicial officers acted responsibly. There was no reason for them either to hasten or to cause a delay in submitting their versions of what they knew. Each of the four judges has acted with a sense of duty. This is how they would be expected, in answering to a call of duty.”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave will be appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the case on Tuesday