The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya.

The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court.&nbsp;

Loya had died on December 1, 2014 in Nagpur, Maharashtra. He was there to attend a colleague's daughter's wedding.&nbsp;

The official cause of death was&nbsp;cardiac arrest.&nbsp;News reports however had called his death suspicious.&nbsp;

The suspicions had emanated largely from Loya's family.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loyas-death-had-suspicion-earlier-over-fathers-death-but-now-it-is-over-says-son-29495">'Had suspicion earlier' over father's death 'but now it is over', says son</a>

On Thursday, however, the Supreme Court said Loya had died of&nbsp;"natural causes".&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, based their conclusions on the testimony of the four Mumbai judges&nbsp;who had been with Loya in Nagpur. The four judges had asserted that Loya had died of natural causes.&nbsp;

Loya had been hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. BJP President Amit Shah was an accused in the case, but was later acquitted.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court also called the petitions the result of a "political rivalry". One of the petitions had been filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench had on March 16 reserved its judgement on the pleas.

The Maharashtra government had argued in the apex court that all pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death were motivated and aimed at targeting "one individual" in the guise of upholding the rule of law.

The top court had earlier asked the Maharashtra government to submit Loya's postmortem report. The court had at the time said the "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issue-of-alleged-mysterious-death-of-cbi-judge-loya-serious-matter-supreme-court-29320">matter was very serious</a>."

(With inputs from agencies)

News reports had called Loya's death in December 2014 suspicious. The CBI judge was at the time hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya. The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court. Loya had died on December 1, 2014 in Nagpur, Maharashtra. He was there to attend a colleague's daughter's wedding. The official cause of death was cardiac arrest. News reports however had called his death suspicious. The suspicions had emanated largely from Loya's family. Also read: 'Had suspicion earlier' over father's death 'but now it is over', says son On Thursday, however, the Supreme Court said Loya had died of "natural causes". The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, based their conclusions on the testimony of the four Mumbai judges who had been with Loya in Nagpur. The four judges had asserted that Loya had died of natural causes. Loya had been hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. BJP President Amit Shah was an accused in the case, but was later acquitted. The Supreme Court also called the petitions the result of a "political rivalry". One of the petitions had been filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala. The Supreme Court bench had on March 16 reserved its judgement on the pleas. The Maharashtra government had argued in the apex court that all pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death were motivated and aimed at targeting "one individual" in the guise of upholding the rule of law. The top court had earlier asked the Maharashtra government to submit Loya's postmortem report. The court had at the time said the "matter was very serious." (With inputs from agencies)

Attempt to scandalise judiciary, says SC, dismisses pleas seeking SIT probe into Judge Loya's death

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-concrete-actions-from-north-korea-before-planned-talks-35266">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-concrete-actions-from-north-korea-before-planned-talks-35266"> seeks &#39;concrete actions&#39; from North Korea before planned talks</a>

US President Donald Trump will not meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un unless Pyongyang takes &quot;concrete actions,&quot; the White House said on Friday as it faced criticism for agreeing to talks that would give North Korea international legitimacy.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/french-president-macron-arrives-in-india-on-4-day-visit-35256">French president Macron arrives in India on </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/french-president-macron-arrives-in-india-on-4-day-visit-35256">4-day</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/french-president-macron-arrives-in-india-on-4-day-visit-35256"> visit</a>

French President France Emmanuel Macron arrived in New Delhi on Friday on a four-day state visit. He was received by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as soon as he touched down at the Delhi airport. The two had a brief interaction before the French president was whisked away in a waiting car.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/deal-with-north-korea-in-the-making-and-will-be-a-good-one-for-the-world-trump-35275">Deal with North Korea in the making and will be a good one for the world: Trump</a>

US President Donald Trump on Saturday a deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world. Trump took to Twitter and said, &quot;a deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world.&quot;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/loya-may-have-died-due-to-poisoning-ngo-to-supreme-court-35276">Justice Loya may have died due to poisoning: NGO to Supreme court</a>

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/gunman-holed-up-at-california-veterans-home-with-3-hostages-35269">Gunman</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/gunman-holed-up-at-california-veterans-home-with-3-hostages-35269"> holed up at California veterans home with 3 hostages&nbsp;</a>

A gunman who once served in the US military opened fire on Friday inside a California home for disabled and aging war veterans, where he took three hostages and was holding police at bay as negotiators sought to make contact with him for several hours, authorities said.

US seeks 'concrete actions' from North Korea before planned talks US President Donald Trump will not meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un unless Pyongyang takes "concrete actions," the White House said on Friday as it faced criticism for agreeing to talks that would give North Korea international legitimacy. French president Macron arrives in India on 4-day visit French President France Emmanuel Macron arrived in New Delhi on Friday on a four-day state visit. He was received by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as soon as he touched down at the Delhi airport. The two had a brief interaction before the French president was whisked away in a waiting car. Deal with North Korea in the making and will be a good one for the world: Trump US President Donald Trump on Saturday a deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world. Trump took to Twitter and said, "a deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world." Justice Loya may have died due to poisoning: NGO to Supreme court An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion. Gunman holed up at California veterans home with 3 hostages A gunman who once served in the US military opened fire on Friday inside a California home for disabled and aging war veterans, where he took three hostages and was holding police at bay as negotiators sought to make contact with him for several hours, authorities said.

WION Morning News Brief, March 10, 2018

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion.

It said that Loya&#39;s ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning .

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack.

&quot;If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack,&quot; Bhushan asked.

He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.

&quot;Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart,&quot; he said.

Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case.

&quot;If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case,&quot; Bhushan added.

This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, &quot;Mr&nbsp;Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter.&quot;

Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, &quot;If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court.&quot;

Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case.

This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can&#39;t be that they should recuse from hearing every other case.

Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack.

He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports.

Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State.

On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking &quot;searching questions&quot; to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government.

Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.&nbsp;

NGO says Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion. It said that Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning . A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack. "If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack," Bhushan asked. He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. "Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart," he said. Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case. "If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case," Bhushan added. This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, "Mr Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter." Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, "If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court." Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case. This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can't be that they should recuse from hearing every other case. Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack. He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports. Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State. On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking "searching questions" to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government. Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Justice Loya may have died due to poisoning: NGO to Supreme court

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-khan-ties-the-knot-for-third-time-33289">Imran Khan gets married for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-khan-ties-the-knot-for-third-time-33289">third</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-khan-ties-the-knot-for-third-time-33289"> time, to &#39;spiritual guide&#39; Bushra Maneka</a>

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has confirmed party chief Imran Khan&#39;s marriage to his &quot;spiritual guide&quot; Bushra Maneka, thus ending weeks of speculation about the union.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/south-africa-widens-zuma-corruption-probe-to-india-33308">South Africa widens Zuma corruption probe to India</a>

South Africa has widened a corruption probe into allies of ex-president Jacob Zuma to other countries including India, China and Dubai, the police minister said Sunday

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/florida-school-shooting-survivors-to-march-on-washington-call-for-gun-reform-33292">Florida school shooting survivors to march on Washington, call for gun reform</a>

Students who survived a mass shooting at their Florida school on Sunday announced plans to march on Washington in a bid to &quot;shame&quot; politicians into reforming laws that make firearms readily available.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-they-are-laughing-their-asses-off-in-moscow-33301">Trump: &#39;They are laughing their asses off in Moscow&#39;</a>

President Donald Trump said Sunday that Russia was succeeding beyond its &quot;wildest dreams&quot; in sowing US discord but refrained once more from directly challenging Moscow on its election meddling.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-seeking-sit-probe-into-justice-loya-case-33305">Supreme Court to hear plea seeking SIT probe into Justice Loya case</a>

The Supreme Court will continue hearing three pleas seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge BH Loya on Monday.

.

Imran Khan gets married for third time, to 'spiritual guide' Bushra Maneka Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has confirmed party chief Imran Khan's marriage to his "spiritual guide" Bushra Maneka, thus ending weeks of speculation about the union. South Africa widens Zuma corruption probe to India South Africa has widened a corruption probe into allies of ex-president Jacob Zuma to other countries including India, China and Dubai, the police minister said Sunday Florida school shooting survivors to march on Washington, call for gun reform Students who survived a mass shooting at their Florida school on Sunday announced plans to march on Washington in a bid to "shame" politicians into reforming laws that make firearms readily available. Trump: 'They are laughing their asses off in Moscow' President Donald Trump said Sunday that Russia was succeeding beyond its "wildest dreams" in sowing US discord but refrained once more from directly challenging Moscow on its election meddling. Supreme Court to hear plea seeking SIT probe into Justice Loya case The Supreme Court will continue hearing three pleas seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge BH Loya on Monday. .

WION Morning News Brief, February 19, 2018

The Supreme Court will today hear pleas filed by three petitioners seeking probe by a Special Investigation Tribunal (SIT) into the alleged mysterious death of CBI judge Justice BH Loya in 2014.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, will hear the petitions.

The assignment of the case was also one of&nbsp;the causes of the recent rift between the Chief Justice of India and four senior&nbsp;judges of the Supreme Court who wanted it to be heard by a senior judge.

The two other judges who will hear the case today are Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar.

It was previously being heard by Justice Arun Mishra, a relatively junior judge in the top court, and Justice MM Shantanagoudar.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, the top court had asked the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/hand-over-all-documents-connected-to-justice-loyas-death-supreme-court-to-maharashtra-government-29678">Maharashtra government to submit the postmortem report </a>of the CBI judge, who had died in alleged suspicious circumstances, stating that the &quot;matter was very serious.&quot;

The report was handed over to the Supreme Court in a sealed envelope on January 16.

The report into Justice BH Loya&#39;s death says there was no foul play in the judge&#39;s death, sources in the Maharashtra home ministry have told the Zee Group.&nbsp;

Judge Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter. At that time was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah is an accused.

The judge who replaced judge Loya, had ruled that there was no evidence against the BJP chief to be put on trial.

Foul play in the judge&#39;s death, after speaking to his family, was first alleged by a magazine.

Loya&#39;s family has since said that they<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loyas-death-had-suspicion-earlier-over-fathers-death-but-now-it-is-over-says-son-29495"> no longer believe foul play</a> was involved in his death.&nbsp;

Anuj Loya, the son of special CBI judge, said on January 14 that the family has no complaints against anyone.&nbsp;

&quot;Have no suspicion over father&#39;s death. Had suspicion earlier but now it is over,&quot; Anuj said at a press conference in Mumbai&nbsp;

Maharashtra-based journalist Lone and activist Tehseen Poonavala had filed independent pleas seeking a fair probe into the death of Justice Loya, media reports said.

 
&nbsp;

The assignment of the case was also one of the causes of the recent rift between the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges of the Supreme Court who wanted it to be heard by a senior judge

The Supreme Court will today hear pleas filed by three petitioners seeking probe by a Special Investigation Tribunal (SIT) into the alleged mysterious death of CBI judge Justice BH Loya in 2014. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, will hear the petitions. The assignment of the case was also one of the causes of the recent rift between the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges of the Supreme Court who wanted it to be heard by a senior judge. The two other judges who will hear the case today are Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar. It was previously being heard by Justice Arun Mishra, a relatively junior judge in the top court, and Justice MM Shantanagoudar. Earlier this month, the top court had asked the Maharashtra government to submit the postmortem report of the CBI judge, who had died in alleged suspicious circumstances, stating that the "matter was very serious." The report was handed over to the Supreme Court in a sealed envelope on January 16. The report into Justice BH Loya's death says there was no foul play in the judge's death, sources in the Maharashtra home ministry have told the Zee Group. Judge Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. At that time was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah is an accused. The judge who replaced judge Loya, had ruled that there was no evidence against the BJP chief to be put on trial. Foul play in the judge's death, after speaking to his family, was first alleged by a magazine. Loya's family has since said that they no longer believe foul play was involved in his death. Anuj Loya, the son of special CBI judge, said on January 14 that the family has no complaints against anyone. "Have no suspicion over father's death. Had suspicion earlier but now it is over," Anuj said at a press conference in Mumbai Maharashtra-based journalist Lone and activist Tehseen Poonavala had filed independent pleas seeking a fair probe into the death of Justice Loya, media reports said.

CJI-led bench of Supreme Court to hear Justice Loya death case today

The Congress Party on Monday said that it will raise special CBI Justice Loya&#39;s death case in the upcoming budget session of the parliament.&nbsp;

Judge Loya, who, before his death, was presiding over the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. BJP president Amit Shah was the prime accused in the case. Shah was subsequently discharged by the judge who succeeded Loya.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress to raise Judge Loya death case in upcoming budget session of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Parliament?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Parliament</a> <a href="https://t.co/nA9dZkfOpI">pic.twitter.com/nA9dZkfOpI</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955418848378761217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra started hearing a batch of PILs seeking an investigation into the suspicious death of Loya.&nbsp;

During the hearing, the SC transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court regarding the case on Monday. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to the judge&#39;s death. &nbsp;

The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

&quot;As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions,&quot; the court said.

The court termed as &quot;serious&quot; the issues raised in the pleas; saying &quot;we must look into all documents with the utmost seriousness&quot;.&nbsp;

Judge Loya, who, before he died, was presiding over the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

The Congress Party on Monday said that it will raise special CBI Justice Loya's death case in the upcoming budget session of the parliament. Judge Loya, who, before his death, was presiding over the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. BJP president Amit Shah was the prime accused in the case. Shah was subsequently discharged by the judge who succeeded Loya. Congress to raise Judge Loya death case in upcoming budget session of #Parliament pic.twitter.com/nA9dZkfOpI — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra started hearing a batch of PILs seeking an investigation into the suspicious death of Loya. During the hearing, the SC transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court regarding the case on Monday. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to the judge's death. The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah. "As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions," the court said. The court termed as "serious" the issues raised in the pleas; saying "we must look into all documents with the utmost seriousness".

Congress to raise Judge Loya death case in upcoming budget session of Parliament

The Supreme Court today directed the Maharashtra government to hand over all documents connected with the death of Justice B H Loya who allegedly died of cardiac arrest three years ago while presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

India&#39;s top court also ordered the Maharashtra government to also include Loya&#39;s postmortem report in a sealed cover.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today had earlier termed as a &quot;serious matter&quot; the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that documents contained confidential material which should not be shared in public and so they cannot be given to the petitioners.

However, the counsel for the petitioner said it needed to have a look at the document, to which the bench said: &quot;It is a matter where they (petitioners) should know everything.&quot;

Salve handed over the documents in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

The bench added that all documents should be given to the petitioners within a week.

The court adjourned the hearing on the matter for after a week without specifying any dates.

India's top court ordered the Maharashtra government to also include Loya's postmortem report in a sealed cover.

The Supreme Court today directed the Maharashtra government to hand over all documents connected with the death of Justice B H Loya who allegedly died of cardiac arrest three years ago while presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. India's top court also ordered the Maharashtra government to also include Loya's postmortem report in a sealed cover. The Supreme Court today had earlier termed as a "serious matter" the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that documents contained confidential material which should not be shared in public and so they cannot be given to the petitioners. However, the counsel for the petitioner said it needed to have a look at the document, to which the bench said: "It is a matter where they (petitioners) should know everything." Salve handed over the documents in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court. The bench added that all documents should be given to the petitioners within a week. The court adjourned the hearing on the matter for after a week without specifying any dates.

Hand over all documents connected to Justice Loya's death: Supreme Court to Maharashtra government

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over &mdash; as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent &mdash; but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference.

&nbsp;

There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that &ldquo;the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order&rdquo; and that &ldquo;many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months&rdquo;. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One argument can be that the four judges&rsquo; decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, &ldquo;We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls&hellip;&rdquo; On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice&rsquo;s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary&rsquo;s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done.

&nbsp;

There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter&rsquo;s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges&rsquo; book and &lsquo;speak out&rsquo;, ostensibly against the party leadership &mdash; a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well &mdash; the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed.

&nbsp;

At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge&rsquo;s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters.

&nbsp;

The first is Poonawala&rsquo;s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a &ldquo;henchman&rdquo; of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to &ldquo;bully&rdquo; him.

&nbsp;

The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father&rsquo;s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being &lsquo;selective&rsquo; in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside.

&nbsp;

There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest &mdash; as some are arguing &mdash; that &lsquo;sensitive&rsquo; case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over — as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent — but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference. There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that “the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order” and that “many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months”. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system. One argument can be that the four judges’ decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, “We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls…” On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office. The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice’s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary’s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done. There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter’s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges’ book and ‘speak out’, ostensibly against the party leadership — a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded. The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well — the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed. At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases. The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge’s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters. The first is Poonawala’s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a “henchman” of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to “bully” him. The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father’s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone. Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being ‘selective’ in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside. There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest — as some are arguing — that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices. In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Did rebel SC judges want to save democracy or be heroes?

justice-loya

Justice Loya, News on Justice Loya, stories on Justice Loya, articles on Justice Loya, Justice Loya stories at Wion, Justice Loya news, Justice Loya latest news

justice loya