SC to hear on Tuesday plea for recall of Judge Loya case judgment
New Delhi, July 28 : The Supreme Court will hear, on July 31, a plea of Bombay Lawyers Association seeking a review and recall of its judgment that held that Special CBI Court Judge B.H. Loya had met with natural death and that a PIL was misused for advancing political agenda and to scandalise the judiciary.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which had earlier rejected the plea for a SIT probe into the judge's death, will hear the plea on Tuesday.
The top court in its April 19 judgment had said: "It gives a sense of anguish that the proceedings were converted to scandalise the judiciary bordering on contempt."
The Bombay Lawyers Association was one of the petitioners who pleaded for a Special Investigation Team probe into the death, which the Supreme Court declined.
When Judge Loya died of a cardiac failure on December 1, 2014, he was conducting a trial in a case related to the alleged staged shootout killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh in November 2005.
Now Bharatiya Janata Party President Amit Shah was one of the accused in the case but was later discharged.
The recall plea filed by senior counsel Dushyant Dave said that the "judgment and order passed by this court requires serious reconsideration and upon such reconsideration deserve to be recalled in the interest of justice and in larger public interest".
He contended that the top court committed an error by relying on the report of Commissioner, Intelligence -- a police officer -- who had conducted an enquiry and reached the conclusion that Judge Loya died of natural causes and that the case did not require an independent investigation.
"It is submitted that in this country, statements made before police officers are not admissible in the eyes of law. Therefore, the inquiry report could not have been placed on a higher pedestal than what law permits and demands," said the plea.
Holding as "erroneous" the finding that the Maharashtra government was authorised to hold an inquiry, the review plea contended that it was a "purely internal administrative inquiry" which was "secretive" and without any legal footing.
The death of Judge Loya demands an "independent inquiry" under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, or ordered by the High Court or Supreme Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers.
Such an "open and transparent" inquiry, the review plea said, should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, involving the summoning of witnesses, cross-examining them, recording evidence and permitting parties to adduce evidence.
This point was advanced before the top court in the course of the hearing of PILs that sought SIT probe into Judge Loya's death but were rejected.
That the judgment needs to be recalled, the review plea says "in as much as it proceeds on the premise that once statements of the judges are recorded by the Commissioner Intelligence, the same must be accepted and cannot be questioned by anybody".
Questioning the veracity of the statements of the judges in the Judge Loya death case, the plea maintained that "such questioning does not amount to either disrespect of the judges, much less a wanton attack on the independence of judiciary".
The inquiry report prepared by the Commissioner Intelligence, the review plea said, "when viewed in the light of freely recorded video interviews of Judge Loya's father and sisters, appears to be a sham and a clear attempt to obstruct justice".
"The father and the sisters had spoken about the pressure on late Judge Loya (and) the offers of bribe to him," said the review petition.
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.
Supreme Court condemns 'bulldozer justice,' says executive cannot replace judiciary
Issues guidelines against demolition of properties over criminal allegations
New Delhi: In a significant judgement on Wednesday, 13 November, the Supreme Court emphasised that properties cannot be demolished solely based on criminal accusations or convictions. The Court asserted that such actions contravene the rule of law and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers, as only the judiciary has the authority to determine a person's guilt.
"The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. If the executive demolishes the property of the person merely on the basis of accusation, it will strike at the rule of law. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness, where might was right. Such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy. Our constitutional ethos do not permit such a course of action," the Court stated.
The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, came in response to a series of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, seeking to halt the use of demolitions as a punitive measure against those accused of crimes. The Court directed that public officials who engage in such actions be held accountable.
"Public officials who take the law into their own hands and act in a high-handed manner must be held accountable," the Court observed, underlining the importance of respecting due process.
Further, the Court noted that demolitions often impose "collective punishment" on the families of the accused or convicted, and therefore outlined specific guidelines to prevent misuse of such actions. Key directives included:
Authorities must issue a show-cause notice before proceeding with demolitions, giving owners at least 15 days to respond.
Property owners should be notified via registered post, and the notice must detail the nature of the unauthorised construction and grounds for demolition.
The designated authority must allow for a personal hearing, with proceedings duly recorded.
Demolition actions should be videographed, with reports sent to the Municipal Commissioner.
Even after issuing a demolition order, affected parties should be given time to challenge it legally. In cases where individuals do not wish to contest, adequate time must be allowed for vacating the premises.
The Court highlighted the adverse impact of such demolitions on vulnerable groups, observing, "It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period."
However, the Court clarified that these guidelines would not apply to cases of unauthorised structures on public land, such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies, or where a Court order for demolition exists.
This judgement builds upon previous stays on demolitions, including an interim order on 17 September, which prohibited demolitions across the country without Court permission except in cases of public encroachments.
