The Supreme Court on Friday made a “loud and clear” message that that it was concerned only with the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, and would not go into other aspects including BJP president Shah’s discharge in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.
The apex court was responding to senior advocate Dushyant Dave when he urged the Supreme Court to not fail its own judiciary, saying it will be a “great disservice” to the judicial brethren if the court does not seriously take the “discrepancies” in the statements about the death of CBI judge B.H. Loya. Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was discharged later on.
“Who will protect our judges?” Mr. Dave asked the three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on behalf of the Bombay Lawyers Association.
The association, along with others like activist Tehseen Poonawala, has moved the Supreme Court for an independent probe into the death of Mr. Loya on December 1, 2014 while he was in Nagpur to attend a wedding. He was accompanied by colleagues, two of whom are Bombay High Court judges now.
Dave cites "discrepancies”
Quoting from a Maharashtra police intelligence report, Mr. Dave accused four judges and other witnesses of "parrot-lying". He pointed to an alleged lack of initiative to inform Loya's family and how his body was reportedly sent home “alone” in an ambulance.
“They said Loya was brought dead to the hospital, yet the hospital bills show he had undergone diet consultancy, neurosurgery, critical care. All this for a dead man? They did neurosurgery on a dead body? They say he was taken ill in his bed at the guest house. Yet he was wearing brown colour full shirt, blue jeans and belt. His wife is called at 5 am, yet the time of death is recorded as 6.15 am. His security was curiously withdrawn a few days before his death,” Mr. Dave submitted.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, tried to reason that “individuals react differently in the face of calamity. Somebody may in hindsight say they should have acted in a different way. But that (the judges' conduct) should not determine the truth or whether Loya's death was natural or not”.
Mr. Dave said the apex court should consider, rather than “throw out at the threshold”, three pivotal aspects in this case — the circumstances of Loya's death, why Mr. Shah was discharged from the case and why the CBI appealed the discharged of the police officers involved in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case and not that of Mr. Shah.
One of the petitioners, Gunarathan Satavarte from the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bar Association, said he has made Mr. Shah a party in his petition concerning Loya's death and a notice should be issued to the political leader.
To this, Chief Justice Misra reacted that “we are only concerned with the death of Loya and not other matters. This is made loud and clear”.
Seniors advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Harish Salve, for Maharshtra government, termed the allegations levelled by Mr. Dave as "absolutely incorrect" and an effort to “malign the judiciary”.
When Mr. Dave wondered aloud why the State was so reluctant to an independent probe into the death of a judge, Mr. Rohatgi responded that the “State has done a discreet investigation. All the judges who were with Loya were asked. Are going to post-mortem an incident that happened three years ago?”
Mr. Dave said Loya's 19-year-old son was recently “paraded before the media by a law firm”.
“Call the family to your chambers and ask them,” Mr. Dave urged the judges.
Senior advocate V. Giri, for Mr. Poonawala, submitted the State should place the entire records on the Loya case before the court for it to decide whether a probe was required or not. Senior advocate Indira Jaising said the State should place the original documents as photocopies show “over-writing”.
When Mr. Dave pointed out to how Mr. Loya's predecessor J.T. Utpal was suddenly transferred despite an Supreme Court direction that one judge should hear the entire case, Mr. Rohatgi retorted with “are we here to talk about the death of a judge or the decision of the Bombay High Court's administrative committee to transfer Judge Utpal?”
The hearing will resume on February 5.
