Judge Loya: These are arguments for destruction of judiciary, Mukul Rohatgi

The hearing in the petitions seeking a probe into the death of Judge Loya concluded today in the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for State of Maharashtra, completed his last leg of submissions.

Rohatgi began his submissions by explaining the nature of ‘discreet enquiry’ conducted by the Commissioner, Intelligence.

“The enquiry was conducted by an officer of the rank of Director General of Police. Discreet enquiry is made without the knowledge of other persons. It draws parallel with anti-corruption enquiry, enquiries by IB.”

Rohatgi then attacked Prashant Bhushan‘s submissions regarding the cause of death of Judge Loya.

“Mr. Bhushan had submitted that Dr. Sharma had told Caravan magazine that it was not a case of heart attack. Police Inspector of Nagpur wrote to AIIMS (Sharma is a retired employee of AIIMS) seeking information with regard to the same. AIIMS then wrote to Sharma who wrote back to AIIMS saying that he has been grossly misquoted [by Caravan] as regards death of Judge Loya. He said he had general discussions.”

Rohatgi also cited a report from KEM Hospital, which had concluded that Judge Loya’s death was a case of acute coronary insufficiency. Rohatgi then came down upon Caravan Magazine’s reports in the matter.

“Not a word of Caravan is to be believed. It is only in the business of sensationalising.”

Rohatgi then once again narrated the chain of events that happened during the days surrounding the death of Judge Loya.

He also questioned the submissions made by the petitioners regarding whether the judge stayed at Ravi Bhavan or not.

“Caravan says Judge Loya stayed at Ravi Bhavan. But now petitioners are expressing doubts on that too. This is absurd.”

He then went on a tirade against the petitioners and questioned their bona fides in filing the petitions.

“Their so-called aim to protect judiciary is completely false. Their aim is to target that individual whom they keep talking about. They are, in fact, causing more damage to the judiciary”, he said before referring to the submissions of various parties to prove his point.

“Mr. Giri’s junior used the word “suspects” to refer to the four judges (who had claimed to be with Loya at the time of his death). Dave wants to cross-examine them. Jaising wants contempt action against administrative committee of Bombay High Court. These are not arguments for upholding the rule of law and protecting the judiciary. These are arguments for destruction”, he said.

He also urged Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to ensure that such innuendos are not hurled at the judiciary.

“Your Lordships sit at the apex of the judiciary. CJI sits as a pater familias. It is the obligation of CJI to ensure that judges remain independent and fearless. If this kind of tendency is allowed, judiciary will not remain fearless.”

It was also Rohatgi’s argument that if a probe is ordered, it will lead to questioning of judges in Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court, and will set a dangerous precedent.

“It is Your Lordship’s discretion to order registration of FIR. But it will be like saying that the threshold for judiciary will be the same as that of others.

If probe is ordered, then 161 (CrPC) statement of the four judges will have to be recorded, 161 (CrPC) statement of 2 High Court judges and judges in the administrative committee of Bombay High Court will also have to be recorded. Where will this end?” he asked.

He also said that the idea of the petitioners is to keep the pot boiling because if a probe is ordered, then there would be news everyday on the issue, due to the court hearings, appeals etc.

“The Final call is with Your Lordships. The State is ever ready to comply with Your Lordship’s directions”, said Rohatgi before resting his case.

The Court then reserved its judgment.