Judge Loya Case Hearing: Heated Exchanges Between Senior Lawyers Again In Supreme Court

The hearing in the string of writ petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI special judge B. H. Loya resumed on Monday, with Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave submitting before the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar a compilation of cases “where the apex court has rightly and proactively intervened from time to time”.“There is an order of February 23 in a matter concerning Shashi Tharoor (seeking the response of the Delhi Police on the Sunanda Pushkar death probe)...there is also the Kerala case where this court ordered a NIA investigation...I expect the same in the present matter...”, he advanced.“Facts must come on record so that allegations can be reverted to...if there are no affidavits, no one can be held accountable...”, he continued, quoting former Supreme Court judgements.“On November 27, 2017, two sitting judges of the Bombay High Court, Justices Bhushan Gawai and Sunil Shukre gave an interview to the Indian Express, stating that there was nothing unnatural in judge Loya’s death. The discreet inquiry report that was submitted a day later as well as the statements of the four district judges reiterate what was said by the two High Court judges. Could the members of the subordinate judiciary have contradicted the High Court judges?”, he asked.Further, he drew the attention of the bench to the connected happenings in the last two weeks pertaining to a single judge of the Bombay High Court hearing the appeal against the discharge of the other accused in the Sohrabuddin murder and the CBI seeking adjournment for no reason in context of why an appeal should not be preferred against the discharge of BJP president Amit Shah.“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”, he remarked.At this point, a war of words broke out between Mr. Dave and the counsel for the respondents.ASG Tushar Mehta- “As an officer of the court, I must object to such remarks about sitting judges”.Mr. Dave- “Not as an officer of the court, but as Amit Shah’s lawyer of past 15 years who is now assisting Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Harish Salve on behalf of the state of Maharashtra”.Mr. Dave- “How did two sitting High Court judges give an interview to Indian Express one day before the inquiry report was submitted? Who had asked them?”Mr. Salve- “Your lordships, please do not allow this. The proceedings are getting broadsided”Mr. Dave- “Please do not allow Mr. Salve to appear in this matter”Moving on to discuss the report of the aforesaid interview, Mr. Dave advanced, “What the two High Court judges said has been repeated by the four district judges in their statements...Justice Gawai stated that he received a call from the Registrar General of the High Court and thereupon, rushed to Meditrina Hospital with Justice Shukre... the Ravi Bhawan is a VIP guesthouse...there must have been the car of some secretary or minister parked outside...there must also have been the police...so why was judge Barde have to come to take judge Loya to the hospital when it must have taken him at least 10-15 minutes to arrive...the Registrar General was staying at the same guesthouse. Why he was not called instead of judge Barde?”“We should be careful of the allegations we make. The interview was published in the Indian Express on November 27, 2017, whereas the statements of the four district judges including judge Modak and judge Kulkarni were procured prior to the said interview. Judge Barde’s statement is dated November 24, 2017”, intervened Justice Chandrachud.“Your Lordships are oversimplifying the matter...probably the two High Court judges had earlier spoken with the district judges...also, did the High Court judges seek permission of the concerned Chief Justice or the Chief Justice of India before going to the press?”, responded Mr. Dave.“There cannot be such a bad faith assumption about our High Court or district court judges”, said Justice Chandrachud.“So why are the judges not saying that even if it was a natural death caused by heart attack, an independent investigation should be conducted? Surely the two high court judges, the four district judges, the state government, the state intelligence machinery as well as their counsels have something to hide”, responded Mr. Dave.“Please do not speak about the counsels. We are only arguing which is our duty...the idea behind these PILs is not to save the judiciary but to target one man...so many sessions of hearing have gone by... the PILs should either be dismissed or there should be some follow up”, said Mr. RohatgiIn response, when Mr. Dave remarked that he has not seen a case where the entire judicial services have thrown their weight behind one man, Justice Khanwilkar asked him not to repeat such contentions.When Mr Dave...

Judge Loya Case Hearing: Heated Exchanges Between Senior Lawyers Again In Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Judge Loya Case Hearing: Heated Exchanges Between Senior Lawyers Again In Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers