Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses pleas for independent probe into Judge Loya death [Read judgment]

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petitions filed seeking an independent investigation into the death of Judge Loya.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, in a batch of PILs demanding an independent probe into the death of the judge.

Justice DY Chandrachud reading out the judgement, held that “there is no reason for the Court to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the four judicial officers.” And stated that the documentary evidence placed before the court indicated that the death of Judge Loya was due to natural causes.

The Court held: “There is no ground for the court to hold that there was a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstance of death which would merit a further inquiry.”

The judgement also recorded that the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors in this case was “lacking in bona fides and reveals a misuse of judicial process” while dismissing this petition and declaring any other transferred cases and pending applications disposed.

The Court came down upon the petitioners and their counsel Dushyant Dave, Indira Jaising, junior counsel appearing with V Giri and Prashant Bhushan for what it termed as scandalising the judiciary and judges and for misusing PIL jurisdiction to settle political scores.

“It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda.”

The court opined that political battles should be fought in the “halls of democracy” and not inside court and censured the credibility of this petition.

“Such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores.”

While stating that there was nothing on record to discredit the statements of the four judges who had testified that Judge Loya died due to natural causes, the Court disapproved of the conduct of the lawyers in the matter.

“An aura of good faith has been sought to be created by submitting that the true purpose of seeking an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Judge Loya is to protect the district judiciary. But as the submissions have evolved, it has become clear that the petition is a veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary and to dilute the credibility of judicial institutions.”

The Court also berated the petitioners for casting aspersions on the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court judges.

“Even judges of this court were not spared”, it said referring to the request made by Prashant Bhushan for recusal of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.

Expressing anguish at the conduct of the petitioners and their counsel, the Court said that it is prima facie criminal contempt of court, but is refraining from taking contempt action.

“The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt. However, on a dispassionate view of the matter, we have chosen not to initiate proceedings by way of criminal contempt”

It, therefore, dismissed the petition holding that there is absolutely no merit in the case.

Backgroud:

PILs by multiple parties came to be filed in the aftermath of a report published by The Caravan magazine in November 2017, which raised questions regarding the suspicious circumstances under which Judge Loya died. A follow-up report published by The Caravan also quoted Judge Loya’s family members alleging the offer of a bribe by then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Mohit Shah to Judge Loya for delivering a judgement in favour of BJP President Amit Shah, the prime accused in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

Judge Loya passed away on December 1, 2014, during the pendency of the politically sensitive Sohrabuddin case. He was the second judge to hear this case, despite the 2012 Supreme Court directive that required the case to be heard by a single judicial officer from beginning to end.

Judge Loya’s predecessor, Judge JT Utpat, was transferred to a different court a day before he was to deliver his order on Amit Shah’s plea to be discharged from the case. Judge Utpat had also questioned Shah’s absence during the hearings.

After taking over from Judge Utpat, Judge Loya had also questioned Shah’s absence and had ordered for his presence for the next hearing. However, Judge Loya passed away on December 1, 2014, fifteen days before the date set for this hearing. Judge MB Gosavi, who took over the case after Judge Loya’s passing, discharged Amit Shah from the case, with the CBI choosing not to appeal the verdict.

Three years after the death, and in the wake of the news reports published by The Caravan, the Maharashtra government ordered a “discreet enquiry” in the case.

Subsequently, in January this year, a PIL was filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) before the Bombay High Court, seeking a probe into the death of Judge Loya. Thereafter, Mumbai-based journalist Bandhuraj Lone also filed a PIL in this regard before the Supreme Court, which was listed for hearing on January 12.

The parallel listing of the PIL before the Supreme Court when the matter was pending before the Bombay High Court raised questions of propriety. On the day this matter was to be heard by a Bench presided by Justice Arun Mishra, four senior most judges of the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, held a press conference, voicing their concern about the listing of cases in the apex court.

Subsequently, Justice Arun Mishra, one of the two judges hearing this case, recused himself.

This prompted CJI Dipak Misra to constitute a new Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and himself to hear the case. One day before the PIL in the Bombay High Court was listed for hearing, the Supreme Court ordered that the cases pending in this regard across all courts be transferred to itself.

The hearings in this case saw some sharp exchanges between the Senior Counsel appearing for the different parties, particularly Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Harish Salve. While Dave was appearing for Bombay Lawyers Association, Salve and Mukul Rohatgi had represented the State of Maharashtra.

During the course of the hearings, Dave had urged the Supreme Court to disallow Harish Salve from representing the State of Maharashtra in the case, claiming this would be a serious conflict of interest since Salve had represented Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin case.

Dave had also alleged conflict of interest on the part of Senior Counsel Pallav Shishodia representing Bandhuraj Lone, pointing out that Shishodia too was a Counsel engaged by Amit Shah in 2011.

Rohatgi, on the other hand had submitted that these petitions were motivated and ill-founded. He had relied on the statements made by four judges who had claimed to be present with Judge Loya at the time of his death. These judges had told the Indian Express that Judge Loya’s passing was a natural death. Rohatgi had also dismissed the reports of The Caravan calling it “yellow journalism”.

After hearing the matter and several rounds of contentious exchanges between Senior Counsel, the Court had reserved its judgement on March 16.

Read the judgment below.