2018 (4) TMI 1855 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Death Ruling for Judge Loya

TEHSEEN POONAWALLA, BANDHURAJ SAMBHAJI LONE, JAYSHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL, BOMBAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, SURYAKANT @ SURAJ Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

TEHSEEN POONAWALLA, BANDHURAJ SAMBHAJI LONE, JAYSHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL, BOMBAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, SURYAKANT @ SURAJ Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE REGISTRAR ... Issues Involved:1. Inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya.2. Allegations of inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding Judge Loya's death.3. Validity and reliability of the discreet inquiry conducted by the State Intelligence Department.4. Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officials involved in the inquiry.5. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ulterior motives.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya:The Petitioners sought an inquiry into the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya, who died on 1 December 2014. The death was reported to be due to a heart attack while he was in Nagpur attending a wedding. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of his death, including the medical records, statements of judicial officers who were present, and the post-mortem report. The Court found that the death was due to natural causes, specifically coronary artery insufficiency, and there was no evidence to suggest foul play.2. Allegations of inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding Judge Loya's death:The Petitioners and intervenors raised several allegations, including inconsistencies in the medical records, the absence of Judge Loya's name in the occupancy register of Ravi Bhavan, and the conduct of the judicial officers present with him. The Court analyzed these allegations and found no substantial evidence to support them. The statements of the judicial officers were found to be consistent and credible. The Court also noted that minor discrepancies in the records were not sufficient to cast doubt on the natural cause of death.3. Validity and reliability of the discreet inquiry conducted by the State Intelligence Department:A discreet inquiry was conducted by the State Intelligence Department following the publication of articles in Caravan magazine. The inquiry involved recording statements from judicial officers and examining medical records. The Petitioners questioned the validity of this inquiry, but the Court found it to be thorough and credible. The inquiry report concluded that Judge Loya's death was due to natural causes, and the Court found no reason to doubt this conclusion.4. Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officials involved in the inquiry:The Petitioners sought to cross-examine several individuals, including judicial officers and medical professionals. The Court rejected this request, stating that cross-examination was not warranted in this case. The Court emphasized that the statements of the judicial officers were credible and consistent, and there was no need for further examination.5. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ulterior motives:The Court expressed concern over the misuse of PIL for personal or political agendas. It noted that the present case appeared to be an attempt to malign the judiciary and create a sensation without any substantial basis. The Court warned against the misuse of PIL, stating that it detracts from genuine cases that require judicial attention and undermines public faith in the judicial process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the allegations of foul play in Judge Loya's death. The Court upheld the findings of the discreet inquiry, which concluded that the death was due to natural causes. The Court also highlighted the misuse of PIL and the need to protect the judiciary from baseless allegations.