English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Judge Loya’s Suspicious Death: Congress Points Out Additional Facts, Two More Deaths

Published

on

Judge Loya's Suspicious Death: Congress Points Out Additional Facts, Two More Deaths

At a press conference that most media organisations underplayed, with most crucial details omitted, the Congress party took up the Judge BH Loya’s death case on Wednesday to demand a Supreme Court-monitored investigation by a special investigative team (SIT) into the matter, alleging there had been two more suspicious deaths in the case.

The party said that, failing this, it would launch a nation-wide campaign and take the issue down to villages.

The Congress said it was not just Judge BH Loya, who was hearing the discharge petition of BJP president Amit Shah, but also a retired district judge and a lawyer, both from Nagpur and who Loya had confided in, who died under suspicious circumstances. An attempt was also made on the life of the only surviving witness, lawyer Satish Uike, the Congress alleged.

This called for an independent and impartial probe, demanded Congress leaders Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, Vivek Tankha and Randeep Surjewala at the press conference.

The Congress demanded that the Supreme Court (SC) order an independent investigation into the “mystery” around the death in 2014 of judge BH Loya, retired district judge Prakash Thombre and Nagpur-based lawyer Shrikant Khandalkar.

Congress leader Kapil Sibal said the SC or the Bombay High Court should constitute an independent special investigation team (SIT) to probe Loya’s death, and those of two others to whom judge Loya had reportedly turned for help.

Sibal said if the Bombay HC failed in its job to take cognisance of these deaths, the Congress would launch an agitation to take the issue to the villages, about how lives of judges and lawyers were at risk. Sibal said the SC-monitored SIT should not have any officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case when he purportedly died of cardiac arrest while in Nagpur to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter on November 30, 2014. Sibal said judge Loya’s sister had alleged her brother was under pressure to pass an order favourable to the accused and to discharge them, and that he was offered Rs 1 billion and a residential flat in Mumbai.

Sibal, party leaders and Satish Uke, a Nagpur-based lawyer and whistle-blower in the case, said Loya’s wasn’t the only mysterious death in the case.

Sibal said Loya had sought help from his friends in Mumbai but couldn’t get support. In October 2014, Loya approached Uke through Nagpur lawyer Shrikant Khandalkar and retired district judge Prakash Thombre. Sibal said Thombre and Khandalkar, and a fourth unknown person, facilitated a video call between Loya and Uke.

According to Sibal and Uke, in the video call, Loya named people, including senior judges and leading politicians, were pressurising him to pass a discharge order in the case. In November, 2014, Uke, Thombre and one of their friends travelled to Delhi to take the opinion of a senior lawyer but returned disappointed when the lawyer said the evidence was not sufficient.

Judge BH Loya dies: On November 30, 2014, Loya died in Nagpur. Sibal said that the judge’s security cover, which he was entitled to as a special CBI judge, was withdrawn on November 24. He said there was no record of Loya travelling to Nagpur and there are several other contradictions and infirmities, including in the autopsy report, that arouse suspicion.

Lawyer Shrikant Khandalkar dies: Sibal said Khandalkar also told Uke he was receiving threats. A year after judge Loya’s death, Khandalkar also died. Sibal said his body was found in the district court premises of Nagpur. He said Khandalkar allegedly fell from the eighth floor of the building on November 29, 2015. He had been missing for two days.

Retired Judge Prakash Thombre dies: According to Uke, retired judge Thombre had also received threats. Sibal said Thombre died suspiciously while travelling in a train from Nagpur to Bengaluru on May 16, 2016. “There is no FIR (First Information Report) till date in this incident,” Sibal said.

Sibal said Uke had also been threatened repeatedly. An attempt on his life was made on June 8, 2016, when an iron material of about 5,000 kg suddenly fell on the roof of the shed he used as his office, Sibal said. Uke escaped as he had stepped out of the office barely a minute before the incident.

“This is what the four judges were saying when talked about democracy being in peril,” Sibal said, in a reference to the press conference of SC judges Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Josesh, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur on January 12, and their letter to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Currently, the SC is hearing a public interest litigation seeking an independent probe into Judge Loya’s death. Former Navy chief Admiral (retired) L Ramdas has also filed a plea in the SC seeking an independent inquiry by a panel of retired apex court judges and former police officers into judge Loya’s death.

BJP chief Amit Shah was one of the accused in the Sheikh encounter case in which he was later discharged.

Here are the salient points, according to the Congress press release:

SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF JUDGE LOYA – NARRATIVE & SYNOPSIS

  1. Circumstances before death of Judge Loya in Nagpur on 30.11.2014

– Sohrabuddin Fake encounter case was transferred from Gujarat to CBI Court, Mumbai on directions of the Supreme Court in 2012. It was directed that same Judge would preside over the trial from start to finish.

– Judge Utpat was designated as Special Judge, CBI Court, Mumbai to preside over the trial of Sohrabuddin case.

– In July 2014, Judge Utpat was transferred abruptly without prior permission of Supreme Court.

– Judge Loya was working as a Registrar, Bombay High Court under the Chief Justice Sh. Mohit Shah. He was transferred as Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai for Sohrabuddin trial.

– Judge Loya was under tremendous pressure to hear the Sohrabuddin Fake encounter matter in haste and to pass an order in favor of an accused to discharge him from this matter. Judge Loya wanted to discharge his judicial function independently and did not want to compromise his honesty.

– He wanted to get away from this case to avoid such high pressure from many influential persons from political background and higher judiciary. During the hearing he also received a draft order for him to sign and to pass order of discharge favoring an accused before 30.12.2014. For this he was offered money of 100 crores to be collected from Nagpur alongwith a residential flat/property in Mumbai

– Judge Loya sought help from some of his known friends in Mumbai but couldn’t get any support from them.

– Thereafter around Second week of October 2014, he approached Adv. Satish Uke, a practicing Advocate of Nagpur city and a whistleblower through Adv. Shrikant Khandalkar another practicing Lawyer of Nagpur and who was friendly with Adv. Uke and another Lawyer and Retd District Judge Prakash Thombre who was also close to Adv Uke.

– Judge Loya wanted to divert attention from himself and sought intervention by Adv. Uke as Adv. Uke had filed matters against influential persons who were pressurizing Judge Loya to pass discharge order.

– Adv. Shrikant Khandalkar  & Adv. Satish Uke  were well known whistleblower of Nagpur City. Three of them i.e. Uke, Khandalkar and Thombre in presence of fourth unknown person facilitated a video call between Judge Loya and Satish Uke. During the video call conversation. Judge Loya , apart from Chief Justice Mohit Shah took names of Justice B.R. Gavai, Devendra Fadnavis and Subhanshu Joshi (Advocate in Nagpur) as the persons pressurizing him to pass the discharge order. He also spoke about a draft order sent to him by these persons to discharge an accused in Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. Judge Loya also told that he will be sending a draft copy of order to Retd Judge Thombre.

– Thereafter within 2-3 days Copy of draft order received by Retd. Judge Thombre and was in custody of Thombre.

– Between 4th November2014 to 09th November 2014 Adv. Satish Uke, Adv. Prakash Thombre and one of their friend came to Delhi to take opinion of a known Senior Lawyer in Delhi about this issue. Senior Lawyer concerned in his opinion did not consider the said material sufficient to approach the Court. So Adv Uke and Adv Prakash Thombre returned disappointed to Nagpur (their travelling records are available).

  1. Suspicious Death of Judge Loya in Nagpur on 30.11.2014

– The police security provided to Judge Loya was withdrawn in Mumbai from 24.11.2014 and he was not provided any security in Nagpur.

– There is no travel record of Judge Loya travelling to Nagpur in Train from Mumbai.

– There is no entry of Judge Loya or Judge Modak in Occupancy register of Ravi Bhawan of 30.11.2014.

– Post Mortem of Judge Loya was conducted on 1/12/14 Time: at 10.50-11.50 a.m. by Doctor Tumram without information and consent of immediate family members.

– There are several discrepanciesin the post mortem report which are self evident.

  1. Suspicious deaths of Advocate Khandalkar and Retd. Judge Thombre who helped Judge Loya

– Thereafter Adv Khandalkar told Adv Uke that he is receiving threats from his erstwhile Senior, Justice B.R. Gavai and Adv. Ketki Joshi of Nagpur. After death of  Judge Loya.

– Adv. Khandalkar’ s body was found in District Court premises of Nagpur allegedly fell from 8th storey on 29th November 2015 (28th November 2015 was closed for Court work on account of 4th Saturday), he was missing for two days.

– Retd. Judge Thombre was also receiving Life threats after death of Judge Loya as told to Adv. Uke from Subhanshu Joshi (husband of Ketki Joshi) and was also threatened that his pension will be stopped by Justice B.R.Gavai.

– Retd. Judge Thombre also died suspiciously while travelling in train from Nagpur to Bangalore on 16/5/2016 in Hyderabad. There is no FIR till date on this incident.

– Adv. Satish Uke was also threatened repeatedly, an attempt on his life was made on 08.06.2016, heavy weight iron material about 5000 kg’s suddenly fell on the office roof of Adv. Uke withing a minute of Adv Uke leaving his office for his house, which was just 50 steps away. This incident destroyed the office of Adv Uke completely. Adv Uke filed a Complaint in Police station Ajni, Nagpur, panchnama was done but till date no FIR or investigation in the said incident.

India News

Hardeep Singh Puri set to win Rajya Sabha bypoll unopposed

Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to be elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh after the returning officer rejected the nomination papers of two independent candidates.

Published

on

Hardeep Puri

Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to enter the Rajya Sabha unopposed from Madhya Pradesh after the nomination papers of two independent candidates were rejected during scrutiny on Tuesday.

The two candidates whose nominations were rejected were Kante Sayanna and Rajkumar Lohani, the latter being backed by the Congress. Their rejection leaves Puri as the only candidate in the contest for the vacant Rajya Sabha seat.

According to an official, the result will be announced on November 5, which is also the last date for withdrawal of nominations.

The Returning Officer, Umesh Sharma, examined the nomination papers on the last day of scrutiny and rejected the two independent candidates’ applications.

Objections raised against Hardeep Puri’s nomination

The nomination papers submitted by Puri also faced objections from the two independent candidates and Congress leader Hemant Katare.

They questioned the validity and completeness of Puri’s affidavit filed in Form 26, raising concerns over whether the mandatory details had been properly furnished.

However, after examining the objections, Returning Officer Umesh Sharma concluded that Puri had not violated any requirements under the Representation of the People Act.

Sharma stated in his order that no defect had been found in Puri’s nomination papers that could justify their rejection.

Following the decision, Katare and Congress MLA Atif Aqeel announced that they would approach the court against the order.

Calling the decision an attack on Indian democracy, the Congress leaders said in a statement that Puri’s nomination should have been rejected despite what they described as significant errors.

Why the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha seat fell vacant

The by-election was necessitated by the resignation of Union Minister L Murugan, which left a Rajya Sabha seat vacant in Madhya Pradesh.

With the nomination papers of both independent candidates rejected and Puri’s nomination cleared, the Union minister is set to be elected unopposed.

The final announcement is expected on November 5, the last day for withdrawal of nominations.

Continue Reading

India News

Yogi Adityanath announces free LPG cylinders on Diwali and Holi

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has announced one free LPG cylinder each on Diwali and Holi for eligible Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana beneficiaries. The state has allocated Rs 1,500 crore for LPG refill subsidies covering more than 1.89 crore beneficiaries.

Published

on

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Tuesday announced that eligible families covered under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) will receive one free LPG cylinder each on Diwali and Holi.

The announcement came as the Chief Minister participated in a programme organised for distributing LPG refill subsidies to more than 1.89 crore beneficiaries across the state.

The Uttar Pradesh government has allocated Rs 1,500 crore for providing subsidies on LPG cylinder refills to eligible families under the scheme.

Addressing the gathering, Adityanath explained the cost of a domestic LPG cylinder and the subsidy provided by the Centre.

“The price of one domestic gas cylinder is Rs 983.45, and out of this, the Government of India provides a subsidy of Rs 335. You have to spend Rs 648.55 from your own pocket,” he said.

The Chief Minister said the state government had decided to provide one cylinder to poor families covered under the Ujjwala scheme on Diwali and Holi.

“With the money you save, you can buy Diwali sweets and lamps,” he said.

Yogi Adityanath targets previous Congress government

During his address, Adityanath also compared the availability of LPG connections under the present government with the situation during the Congress government’s tenure.

He said people previously faced several difficulties in obtaining a single gas connection, while the present government had provided free gas connections to poor families.

The Chief Minister described the initiative as an example of good governance.

Yogi Adityanath on Ayodhya’s Deepotsav

Earlier on Tuesday, Adityanath described Ayodhya’s Deepotsav, scheduled for November 7, as a symbol of social unity.

In a post on X, he said the festival brought together people from different sections of society through shared faith and cultural participation.

He also referred to the Deepotsav tradition initiated by the state government in 2017, saying it had transformed Ayodhya’s cultural heritage into a celebration involving people from different walks of life.

The Chief Minister is scheduled to visit Ayodhya to review preparations for the event.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission clarifies Form 6 rules for existing voters under SIR

The Election Commission has clarified that voters previously enrolled in electoral rolls can submit Form 6 for inclusion if their names are missing from draft lists published during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Published

on

Election Commission of India

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified that voters whose names appeared in earlier electoral rolls but are missing from draft lists published during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) can submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll.

In a communication issued on November 3 to the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of all states and Union Territories, the poll body addressed concerns among previously registered voters who were hesitant to submit the form because of the declaration required alongside it.

The Commission clarified that submitting Form 6 in such circumstances would not, by itself, amount to making a false declaration merely because the applicant had been enrolled as a voter previously.

It also stated that no action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, would be initiated against such applicants solely on the ground of their previous enrolment.

However, this protection applies provided the applicant is not already registered in another Parliamentary or Assembly constituency and the declaration submitted is otherwise in accordance with the law.

Why existing voters were hesitant to submit Form 6

The clarification follows concerns that some previously enrolled voters were reluctant to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll after finding their names missing from the draft lists published during the SIR exercise.

Form 6 requires applicants to furnish a declaration stating that their names are being included in the electoral roll for the first time.

This created apprehensions among previously registered voters, who feared that submitting the form despite their earlier enrolment could be treated as a false declaration and expose them to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The Election Commission has now clarified that earlier registration does not prevent an eligible voter from submitting Form 6 again when their name does not appear in the draft electoral roll.

Election Commission refers to Delhi High Court order

In its communication, the Commission also referred to the Delhi High Court’s October 14 order in the case of Nilotpal Datta and another versus the Election Commission of India and others.

The case concerned an applicant who had previously been enrolled as a voter but was apprehensive about submitting Form 6 because of the declaration that the name was being included in the electoral roll for the first time.

The High Court observed that the petitioners’ apprehension was misplaced and allowed them to submit Form 6, if they wished, for processing in accordance with the law.

The Election Commission’s latest clarification is in line with this judicial observation.

EC asks states and UTs to publicise clarification

The poll body has asked Chief Electoral Officers across all states and Union Territories to ensure that the clarification reaches concerned voters.

It has also requested officials to publicise the information widely through available media platforms and in local languages so that eligible voters are aware of the procedure for seeking inclusion in the electoral roll.

The clarification comes amid ongoing concerns and legal challenges surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the process of re-enrolling voters whose names do not appear in draft lists.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com