Angry exchanges between judges, lawyers in Loya case

New Delhi: Sparks flew in the Supreme Court on Monday as senior advocates clashed with each other, crossing the limits of courtesy, and a judge told a counsel not to shout him down during a high-voltage hearing on petitions seeking an SIT probe into the death of Mumbai CBI judge H.B. Loya,

Senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Pallav Sisodia crossed swords when Mr Dave, seeking a fresh probe into the case, objected to the court allowing Mr Sisodia, who had earlier represented BJP chief Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, to now appear for one of the petitioners seeking a fresh probe in to judge Loya.

During the proceedings, an angry judge pulled up Mr Dave, saying “You shall not shout me down. You shall listen when a judge speaks to you.”

Mr Dave, appearing for the Bombay Lawyers Association that is seeking a fresh probe in Loya case and planning to demand examination of four Maharashtra judges in the case, dragged the judges into the controversy by saying that they will have to answer to their “conscience” for allowing Mr Sisodia to appear in the matter.

An angry court shot back at Mr Dave, “Don’t teach us about our conscience.”

“Let us not reduce the dialogue in this court to the level of fish market; at least not before the portraits (in the court hall) of the first CJI H.L. Kania and his successor B.K. Mukherhjea.”

“You should not shout down the judge. You have to listen to me Mr Dave,” said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in the presence of CJI Dipak Misra, who was heading the bench, and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Mr Dave retorted, “No, I will not. Your Lordships should have stopped them from appearing in this court. You will have to answer to your conscience”.

Arguments will now continue on February 9. Multiple petitioners have approached the apex court seeking an independent probe into the allegedly mysterious death Loya around the time when he was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case.

Earlier, the hearing commenced with senior counsel V. Giri appearing for petitioner Tehseen Poonawalla and pressing for a fresh probe into Loya’s death.

After Mr Giri, Mr Sisodia advanced arguments on behalf of journalist and petitioner Bandhuraj Lone.

During the argument, Mr Sisodia took exception to the recent insinuations made against the judiciary after four senior judges of the Supreme indirectly questioned the integrity of an earlier apex court bench that was hearing the petitions in the Loya case.

Mr Sisodia said that an independent probe cannot be a one-way traffic when people make allegations, in a veiled plea to probe why doubts were raised in some quarters over the integrity of an apex court bench which was earlier hearing the Loya case.

Senior counsel Indira Jaising, appearing for petitioner Vice-Admiral Ramdas, said, “If Mr Sisodia does not want an inquiry then why has he come here.”

Mr Dave intervened and told the court that the purpose of filing this petition by Mr Sisodia was to prevent a hearing of the petition filed in the Bombay high court.

He objected to Mr Sisodia and counsel Harish Salve, who earlier appeared for Mr Shah before he was discharged in Loya’s death case, now appearing for other parties.

He said, “The Bar Council of India has issued notice to me for misconduct for raising voice of truth while people who have indulged in misconduct like them get away. I won’t be cowed down.”

Mr Sisodia turned towards Mr Dave and said, “We don’t care what you say... you can go to hell or heaven or wherever you want.”

Justice Chandrachud, turning towards Mr Sisodia, said, “Even your language is improper. Courtesy begets courtesy.”

Mr Salve said, “Sometimes courtesy does not beget courtesy.” However, Mr Sisodia expressed his sincere apologies.

Mr Dave said, “It is disappointing that the state is opposing the probe. And what is even more disappointing is that all those who are appearing for the state today appeared for Mr Amit Shah. But your Lordships don’t want to hear that.”

During the hearing, Mr Dave got permission from the court to file an application for examination of four Maharashtra judges, two of whom are now in the high court, in the Loya case.

Earlier, Mr Giri pressed for an independent probe saying there are inconsistencies in the probe conducted by Maharashtra intelligence. He said the story presented by the Maharashtra does not inspire confidence and requires investigation.

He said statements of witnesses are false, as the independent persons who were privy to the said incident were never verified and even the sequence of events is not corroborated by any supporting documents.

He said that the state intelligence department has selectively not examined/verified any of the persons who could have narrated the sequence of events.

“No investigation was done to establish the presence of the deceased in Ravi Bhavan, Nagpur, or the claim that he attended a wedding. There are no medical documents from Dande Hospital, where Loya was taken at the first instance. There was no verification done from the doctor who advised that deceased be taken to cardiac centre,” he said, adding that there was no verification done from the four doctors who were present at the time of the incident.

Just before his death, Loya was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case in which Mr Shah was named as an accused. According to police, Loya died of cardiac arrest on December 1, 2014, in Nagpur where he had gone to attend a wedding.