SC Order Saying I Agreed To Transfer Of Petitions From Bombay HC In Judge Loya Case Incorrect: Indira Jaising Informs SC

In a tweet, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has claimed that the Supreme Court has wrongly recorded in one of its recent orders that she agreed to transfer of the Petitions in Judge Loya case from the Bombay High Court to the Apex Court.“I mentioned that this should be corrected, I pointed out that page to my request to intervene is recorded. Hence the obvious error must be corrected. The judges kindly agreed”The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had, in its order dated 22 January, noted, "We have been apprised that two Public Interest Litigations have been filed in the Bombay High Court, one at the Principal Seat at Bombay High Court forming the subject matter of P.I.L. No.2 of 2018 and another at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court i.e. Writ Petition No.1130 of 2017. We think it in the fitness of things appropriate to transfer the said writ petitions to this Court and, accordingly, it is so ordered. Mr. Dave and Ms. Jaising have fairly agreed to this course of action."It is this observation that Ms. Jaising has now rebutted and has approached the Court for its removal.Speaking to LiveLaw, she said, "The order dated 22nd January records at page 3 that Dave and miss JAISING agree to this course of action, that is transfer of the two petitions from High Court to Supreme Court. I am not appearing for either of the petitioners, Mr. Dave said he was appearing on behalf of Bombay Lawyers Association. The Nagpur Petitioner was not present before the Court. That is why the order says that the registrar will inform them directly and if they wish they can assist the court. It follows therefore that I could not have agreed to the transfer. I mentioned that this should be corrected, I pointed out that page to my request to intervene is recorded. Hence the obvious error must be corrected. The judges kindly agreed.In my opinion, the Supreme Court is a court of record and hence the record must be accurate. I have informed the Court I am filing an intervention on behalf of Admiral Ramdas.(sic)"The Court had, on Monday, directed that similar Writ Petitions pending before the Bombay High Court be transferred to it and barred all High Courts from entertaining any similar petitions.You may read: Salve Vs Dave -The Gripping Courtroom Exchange In SC During Judge Loya Death Case HearingThe two Petitions before the Apex Court- one filed by Mr. Banduraj Sambhaji Lone and another filed by Mr. Tehseen Poonawalla- demand an independent probe into the mysterious death of CBI Special Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya in 2014, when he was presiding over the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. The 48-year old Judge had died of a cardiac arrest in Nagpur, where he had gone to attend a wedding on December 1, 2014.The allegations first appeared in two reports by The Caravan Magazine, which cited interviews with Judge Loya’s relatives– his sister Anuradha Biyani, niece Nupur Balaprasad Biyani and father Harkishan. According to the magazine, Judge Loya’s wife Sharmila and son Anuj declined to speak since they feared for their lives.As per the article, Judge Loya was in Nagpur for the 30 November, 2014 wedding of the daughter of another sitting Judge at the Mumbai Sessions Court, Swapna Joshi. On 1 December, his family members received calls informing them about his demise after suffering a massive cardiac arrest.The investigative report by Mr. Niranjan Takle points out glaring inconsistencies in the cardiac arrest story. It highlights inconsistencies in the reported account of the death. There were large variations in the precise time of his death and that fact that Judge Loya’s phone was wiped clean of all data before it was returned to the family. The Judge’s postmortem report was also allegedly signed by “maiyatacha chulatbhau”, or paternal cousin, when his family says there is no such person in the family. Further, his family members had noticed blood on his clothes.Another article had alleged that Justice Mohit Shah had offered Judge Loya Rs. 100 crore for a judgment in favor of Mr. Amit Shah. The article had quote the Judge’s sister, who claimed that Justice Shah would “would call him late at night to meet in civil dress and pressure him to issue the judgment as soon as possible and to ensure that it is a positive judgment.My brother was offered a bribe of 100 crore in return for a favorable judgment. Mohit Shah, the chief justice, made the offer himself.“Shortly after Judge Loya’s death, a new Judge, M.B. Gosavi had discharged Mr. Amit Shah, after hearing the parties for three days. The article goes on to question the manner in which the trial took place, asserting that it had violated a September 2012 Supreme Court order, that the Sohrabuddin trial “should be conducted from beginning to end by the same officer”.

SC Order Saying I Agreed To Transfer Of Petitions From Bombay HC In Judge Loya Case Incorrect: Indira Jaising Informs SC

Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

SC Order Saying I Agreed To Transfer Of Petitions From Bombay HC In Judge Loya Case Incorrect: Indira Jaising Informs SC

Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers