What is scandalous about Judge Loya's probe?
- Vinod Chand
If you want to understand what is scandalous about Judge Loya's probe, read on;
The first scandalous thing is that the lawyers who were defending Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Encounter Case became lawyers for Maharashtra Government to fight for stopping an inquiry into the death.
The second scandalous thing was that a person close to a top BJP leader moved a PIL in the Supreme Court and during the hearing instead of asking for a probe into the death turned into a litigant that was asking for stopping a probe into the death as by then it had dawned on him that the PIL that he had filed was based on hearsay and stories in a magazine.
The third scandalous thing was that the PIL by Bombay Lawyers Association was filed in Bombay High Court but was kept pending by the registry for several days and surreptitiously two PIL's were filed in the Supreme Court and immediately accepted leaving the Bombay Lawyers Association no option but to move their PIL to the Supreme Court.
The fourth scandalous thing has already been detailed by the four Supreme Court Judges in their unprecedented in history, press conference where they questioned the method of operation of the Supreme Court and the allotment of cases to benches that could give favorable orders.
The fifth scandalous thing was that Maharashtra Government commissioned a 'discrete inquiry' by a Police Officer, which was completed in a matter of days and which became the main document relied on by the Supreme Court even though neither the inquiry report nor the statements given by any of those who had been supposedly interrogated by the said senior police officer came on affidavit. They just made plain statements as ordinary citizens and not under oath. This has set very dangerous precedents for the justice delivery system. The scandalous thing is that would all courts now accept plain statements not made under oath as acceptable on record in any / all cases?
The sixth scandalous thing was that no person who had been subjected to an inquiry by the Police Officer was called for questioning by the court or allowed to be cross questioned even when repeated requests were made by the petitioners, Bombay Lawyers Association through their lawyer Dushyant Dave.
The seventh scandalous thing was that the petitioners were denied copies of post mortem and ECG reports during the hearing of the case.
The biggest scandal is that the mere words of some persons who did not even come to the Supreme Court on oath were accepted as gospel truth due to the position that they held as judges in Bombay High Court and subordinate courts.
The rejection of Judge Loya's death probe request will go down as probably the darkest hour in the history of free and modern India. We have hit the nadir, the lowest point. Our whole justice system now seems to resemble a scandal. It looks like that all established judicial procedures have been set aside to save the skin of one person and in doing that justice has been denied.
If people don't wake up to this reality, there is hardly any hope left for the country.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
