English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court rejects probe in Judge Loya’s death, BJP triumphant

Published

8 years ago

on

Supreme Court rejects probe in Judge Loya's death, BJP triumphant

There is no merit in plea for a probe in Judge BH Loya’s death and it was an attempt to scandalise judiciary, ruled the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 19.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that the petitions were a “veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary” and that “there is no reason to doubt the statements of sitting Judge.”

The bench also said that the “petitioners’ conduct prima-facie constitutes criminal contempt,” but the court “would spare them of any contempt action.”

The bench said that the death was due to natural causes, that there is “absolutely no merit” in the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions alleging foul play in his death and there will be no probe.

The court said the statements of the judges who were with Judge Loya at his time of death could not be doubted: “We can’t doubt the statements of the judicial officers who were with Loya.”

Also, “Documents placed on record and their scrutiny establishes that Judge Loya’s death was due to ‘natural cause’.”

Records say that Judge Loya – the special CBI judge overseeing the investigation of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was an accused – died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur in 2014. Shah was discharged from the case by Judge Loya’s successor in office.

Controversy over Judge Loya’s death arose following a report in Caravan magazine, which quoted his sister and father suggesting foul play and cover-up in the incident.

The Bombay Lawyers’ Association subsequently moved the Bombay High Court, seeking a probe in the matter. PILs were filed in the Supreme Court. The apex court transferred the petitions in Bombay HC to itself and heard all of them together.

CJI Dipak Misra referred to the Caravan report, mentioning Loya’s conversation with his wife. He said: “An attempt was made to scandalize this case.” He also referred to the evolution of the public interest litigation and how the PIL was misused, “which is a serious issue to look into.”

He said: “It is the duty of the court to look into the fact (as to) which PIL is genuine and which one is filed under the facade of political activity.”

The SC said PILs, which were meant to provide succour to the downtrodden and voiceless, have become a means to settle political and personal scores. It said the judiciary is unnecessarily being made to spend precious time looking into such PILs which leads to delay in giving justice in other cases.

The top court said the petitioners’ advocates Dushyant Dave, Indira Jaising and Prashant Bhushan launched a frontal attack on the judiciary by urging the SC to disbelieve the three judicial officers who accompanied Loya to Nagpur and stayed with him at a guest house, and who later said the judge died of a heart attack.

Justice Chandrachud observed that the petitioners used the Supreme Court and their PILs as platforms to malign the Bombay High Court judiciary and the judicial officers who were with Judge Loya at the time of his death. At one point, the petitioners even wanted to “cross-examine” the judges who were with Judge Loya on their statements that said he died of a cardiac arrest.

The judgment said the PILs were a “serious attack on the judiciary” and an attempt to “seriously scandalise” judges.

The petitioners created a facade that the PILs were meant to protect the independence of the judiciary by seeking a probe into the death of Judge Loya. The truth was that the petitioners wanted to sensationalise the death of a judge. The PILs were only a “veiled attempt to destroy the credibility of judiciary” with “scurrilous” claims.

Claims by petitioners that “one man” (Amit Shah) was controlling the judiciary was nothing but an attempt to undermine public faith in the judiciary and credibility of judicial process, the judgment said.

Justice Chandrachud said the petitioners should not use the courts to settle political scores. “Political rivalries should be settled in that great hall of democracy… Rule of law should not be reduced to a charade,” he observed.

The apex court said the petitioners’ claims and aspersions amounted to criminal contempt. But Justice Chandrachud said the court did not want to initiate contempt proceedings as judicial process should not be respected out of fear of contempt, but it is to be based on moral authority.

The court dismissed the Loya PILs, holding that there was no reasonable suspicion to show that Judge Loya’s death was unnatural.

BJP and Congress reactions

A triumphant BJP attacked the Congress, calling it the “invisible” hand behind the petitions and accusing it of trying to use the judiciary for “character assassination” of its BJP president Amit Shah.

BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra described the public interest litigations (PILs) seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge Loya as “political interest litigations”.

Patra noted that the Congress had held press conferences and its president Rahul Gandhi led a delegation of Opposition parties to the President seeking a probe. Patra said Gandhi should “apologise” and be ashamed” for his ”conspiracy” to target Shah and the Indian judiciary and democracy.

Patra tweeted, “The highest Court of the country throws out of window the lowest attempt to politicise the unfortunate heart attack of a Judge! No doubts on the veracity of the statements of the 4 judges, says the SC! While truth triumphs Rahul Gandhi loses face #SCslamsCongressOnLoya”

The Congress said that the Supreme Court judgment will raise more questions and leave many of them unanswered unless logical reasons were found in it.

“Dispassionate analysis of Loya judgment must await its full reasoning. But unless logical reasons found in it, it will raise more questions and leave many unanswered,” Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said on Twitter.

Singhvi said the apex court can remove suspicions only by dealing with them directly.

“Am prepared to accept a) heavy emphasis in SC Loya regarding veracity of accompanying judges b) anguish regarding scandalous arguments (c) initiation of contempt if it arises (d) provided it is accompanied by solid reasons rebutting the 7/8 suspicious circumstances raised. Absent that, above lamentations not enough,” he tweeted.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

“Will die but won’t give up”: Sahil Wakode’s parents urge IIT students to continue fight 

Sahil Wakode’s parents have appealed to IIT Bombay students to continue their fight for justice amid the ongoing investigation into their son’s death.

Published

29 mins ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Sahil Wakode

The parents of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode have appealed to students to continue raising their voices and fighting for justice following their son’s death.

Sahil Wakode, a second-year student at IIT Bombay, died in his hostel room on September 18. His death has led to student protests and an ongoing investigation by the Mumbai Crime Branch.

What Sahil Wakode’s parents have alleged

Sahil’s parents have alleged that their son faced caste-based discrimination and harassment at IIT Bombay before his death. They have sought action against those they hold responsible and have demanded a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

The family has also called for a CBI inquiry and has sought the arrest of officials named in the case. These remain allegations and are part of the ongoing investigation.

The Mumbai Crime Branch took over the probe after an FIR was registered following the complaint by Sahil’s parents.

IIT Bombay’s position

IIT Bombay has said that Sahil was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT to seek answers.

The institute has maintained that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him. It said the matter had been discussed with him by the instructor and the Head of the Department, who counselled him and assured him that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career.

The circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death are being investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Investigation continues

The case remains under investigation, with the Mumbai Crime Branch examining the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death and the allegations made by his family.

His parents have continued to demand justice and action against those they believe were responsible, while the investigation is expected to establish the facts surrounding the case.

Continue Reading

India News

Gyanesh Kumar meets election commissioners amid poll panel row

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar met Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi amid a controversy over reported objections to Election Commission decisions.

Published

49 mins ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar held a meeting with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi amid an ongoing controversy over the functioning and decision-making process of the Election Commission of India.

The meeting comes days after a report raised questions over formal objections allegedly recorded by the two Election Commissioners regarding several decisions and orders of the poll panel.

The Election Commission has maintained that differing views, observations and suggestions are part of its normal deliberative process. It has also said that all decisions taken by the full Commission over the past year were unanimous.

What is the Election Commission controversy?

The controversy followed a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period.

The reported objections included issues concerning changes to Form 6, the handling of additions and deletions from electoral rolls and the centralisation of electoral-roll data.

Form 6 is the statutory form used for applying for registration as a voter.

The Election Commission, however, has disputed the suggestion that the objections amounted to dissent over final decisions. The poll body said written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks and balances are standard parts of its functioning.

ECI says decisions were unanimous

The poll panel has said that all decisions taken by it during the past year were the outcome of unanimous decisions of the full Commission.

It also said that operational queries or inputs raised during the drafting stage are part of the normal administrative process and are intended to improve electoral procedures and safeguard voter rights.

The issue has gained significance because the Election Commission is conducting electoral-roll revisions, including the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), in several parts of the country.

Opposition parties have questioned the functioning of the poll panel and have cited the reported objections by the two Election Commissioners in their criticism of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Political parties seek clarification

The controversy has also prompted calls for greater clarity from political parties, including some parties that are allies of the BJP-led NDA.

LJP (Ram Vilas) chief Chirag Paswan, TDP Lok Sabha floor leader Lavu Srikrishna Devarayalu and Rashtriya Lok Morcha chief Upendra Kushwaha have sought clarification from the Election Commission regarding concerns surrounding the voter-list revision and the reported objections.

The Election Commission has continued to maintain that its decisions have followed the applicable laws, rules and established procedures.

Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

5 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com