New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking a SIT probe into the death of Judge Loya, who was conducting a trial in a case related to the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, who was allegedly shot in a stage-managed shoot-out.
Holding that there was absolutely no merit in the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that Judge B.H. Loya had met a natural death.
Dismissing the petitions, the court said in its judgment: “There is no doubt and it is clear from the statements of the judicial officers that Loya died of natural causes.”
Three of the judicial officers, the court said, had travelled with Judge Loya by train from Mumbai to Nagpur to attend a wedding reception. They stayed together at Ravi Bhawan, attended the function and during the day time they also visited the residences of a few judges.
The judgment pronounced by Justice Chandrachud also took exception to the way the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed and that insinuations were made against the committee of administrators of the Bombay High Court and the judges of the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing of the matter.
“Sacrilegious allegations were made against administrative committee of the Bombay High Court,” it said.
However, the court said that it was not initiating civil contempt against the petitioner for scandalising the judiciary. The court castigated the petitioners for making unfounded allegations against the judicial officers which were extraneous to the issue.
It was intended to create prejudice against the judicial officers and scandalise the judiciary, the judgment said.
“The PIL was misused with a political agenda that one man was behind everything. It is a matter of serious concern when court is faced with frivolous PILs and several genuine cases involving personal liberty of under-privileged are pending.”
“It is a travesty of justice in the guise of demanding independence of judiciary, as if there is a great danger to this institution,” the court said and stressed that the PIL was used to settle political scores.
“It gives a sense of anguish that the proceedings were converted to scandalise the judiciary bordering on contempt,” the court said.
The court said that there were “absolutely no grounds for such insinuations”.