Issue of judge B H Loya’s ‘mysterious’ death a serious matter: Supreme Court

Agencies
January 12, 2018

New Delhi, Jan 12: The Supreme Court on Friday termed a "serious matter" the issue of ''mysterious'' death of special CBI judge B.H. Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, and sought a response from the Maharashtra government to pleas seeking an independent probe into it.

The court said, "This matter requires biparty hearing rather than ex parte."

A Bench of justices Arun Mishra and M.M. Shantanagoudar asked Maharasthra Government counsel Nishant R. Katneshwarkar to file a reply by January 15.

'High Court seized of matter'

At the outset, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the Bombay Lawyers Association, which had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, said the court was seized of the matter and the Supreme Court should not hear the pleas. “The Bombay High Court is seized of the matter and in my opinion the Supreme Court should not hear this matter. If the court goes ahead with the hearing, it may have implications before the High Court,” he said.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Maharashtra-based journalist B.R. Lone, said in the Supreme Court that she had also instructions from the Bombay Lawyers Association that this matter should not be heard by the top court.

Both petitions are seeking an enquiry into the events and circumstances surrounding Loya’s death.

The apex court Bench, however, said it would look into the petitions but would also consider the objections raised.

Advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma, appearing for another petitioner, Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala, said this was a case of a mysterious death of a judge on December 1, 2014 and it needed to be investigated.

The Bench then asked Mr. Katneshwarkar to file the mortem report and other relevant documents on the death of Loya besides taking instructions from the government.

The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 15.

Loya died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he was attending the wedding of a colleague’s daughter.

Also Read: Four SC judges break silence, slam administration of top court

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 14,2020

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 11,2020

New Delhi, Feb 11: As the counting of votes for the Delhi Assembly polls began, Congress leader Digvijaya Singh on Tuesday raised doubts on EVMs, alleging that no machine having a chip is tamper-proof.

He called upon the Election Commission and the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the use of EVMs in the country.

"No machine (which) has a chip is tamper-proof. Also please do for a moment think, why no developed country uses EVM," Singh said in a tweet.

"Would CEC and Hon Supreme Court please have a fresh look on EVM voting in India? We are the largest democracy in the world, we can't allow some unscrupulous people to hack results and steal the mandate of 1.3 billion people.

"If they match the votes in the counting unit. Declare the result. If they don't match then count the ballots of all polling booths in the assembly. It would convince everyone and save time also as this has been the consistent argument of CEC in favour of EVM," the Congress leader said.

Polling for the 70-member Delhi Assembly polls was held on Saturday.

The Election Commission on Sunday announced that the final voter turnout was 62.59 per cent, five per cent less than 2015.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 19,2020

New Delhi, Jun 19: RJD and AAP were not invited to the all-party meeting called by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday to discuss the situation at the India-China border after 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a "violent face-off," leaving the parties fuming.

Top RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav criticised the government for not inviting the party to the meeting, asking on Twitter late Thursday night, "Just wish to know the criteria for inviting political parties for tomorrow's (Friday's) all-party meet on Galwan Valley. I mean the grounds of inclusion/exclusion. Because our party hasn't received any message so far."

AAP's Rajya Sabha leader Sanjay Singh joined the chorus, "there is a strange ego-driven government at the centre. AAP has a government in Delhi and is the main opposition in Punjab. We have four MPs. But on a vital subject, AAP's views are not needed? The country is waiting for what the Prime Minister will say at the meeting."

Sources said the government has set a criteria to invite only parties with five or more MPs in Parliament for the digital meet, where the Prime Minister will brief the top leaders of parties and hear their views on the way ahead. There are at least 27 parties in the Parliament, which have less than five members, while 17 have more than five members or more than five MPs.

Interestingly, RJD has five MPs in Rajya Sabha and its senior MP Manoj K Jha shared the Rajya Sabha website link on Twitter, which showed the party has five MPs. "We have not been invited and the government's bogus argument has been exposed," Jha said.

CPI leaders said General Secretary D Raja received a call from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inviting him to the meeting and with a message that the Prime Minister's Office would coordinate but there was no follow-up after that.

"Exclusion of AAP and RJD in the all-party meet on a National debate does not augment well. AAP is ruling Delhi and has its CM. Why should people of Delhi be kept out in such an important debate on National integrity and Sovereignty?" former NCP MP Majeed Memon tweeted.

During the all-party meeting on COVID-19 too, the government had not called all parties with representation in Parliament to the all-party meeting in April and had set five MPs as a benchmark to be invited.

Raja had then written a letter to Modi demanding that the government should not get into "technicalities" and discuss the issue with all parties in Parliament.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.