SC trashes pleas for SIT probe into Loya’s death

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed pleas seeking an independent probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court judge BH Loya, ruling that he had died of natural causes and slamming the petitions as a serious attempt to scandalise the judiciary and obstruct the course of justice.

A three-judge bench including chief justice Dipak Misra held that the ruling, which triggered an immediate political slugfest between the ruling and opposition parties, had put an end to all public interest litigation (PIL) over the circumstances of judge Loya’s death.

“PIL jurisdiction is being brazenly used by those who have an agenda to settle scores,” the bench said in its order. “The true face of the petition is seldom unravelled. It’s a serious concern as frivolous PILs detract court’s time from hearing genuine petitions of personal liberty.”

Judge Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, died of a cardiac arrest on December 1, 2014, in Nagpur, where he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter. Bharatiya Janata Party chief Amit Shah, among others, was named in the Sohrabuddin case, and later discharged.

Judge Loya’s death came under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoted his sister as raising suspicions about the circumstances surrounding it, and linked it to the Sohrabuddin case. Four judges who were in Nagpur with him at the time said the death was due to natural causes. Loya’s son, in January, also said his father’s death was natural.

Several persons, including activist Tehseen Poonawala and Maharashtra-based journalist BS Lone, then moved the Supreme Court seeking an independent probe into Loya’s death.

“There is no reason to doubt the consistent statements by judges who accompanied judge Loya to Nagpur,” the Supreme Court bench ruled on Thursday.

The Supreme Court also condemned the petitioners for refer- ring to cases not related to the Judge Loya case, and said “unfounded aspersions” had been cast on high court judges and insinuations were made that one individual was controlling the judiciary.

The court pulled up the petitioners’ lawyers for making “scurrilous” remarks against the judiciary and doubting the statement of the high court judges, and said the action amounts to contempt for “scandalising” the judiciary, though not issuing notices.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, claiming vindication, mounted an attack on the opposition Congress after the ruling. “It is extremely unfortunate that there have been several attempts at targeting the BJP and assassinating the character of its top leaders on the basis of ‘fake facts’. These attempts have failed miserably once again,” home minister Rajnath Singh said on Twitter.

SLUGFEST BJP slams campaign against 'one individual’, ‘sad letter day’, cries Congress PIL jurisdiction is being brazenly used by those who have an agenda to settle scores. The true face of the petition is seldom unravelled. Frivolous PILs detract court’s time from hearing genuine petitions

SUPREME COURT BENCH NEWDELHI: