Judge Loya Death Case

The Loya case had earlier been allocated to a Supreme Court bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and M.M. Shantanagoudar

The Loya case had earlier been allocated to a Supreme Court bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and M.M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court on Monday transferred two cases of the Bombay High Court to the apex court in connection with the Special CBI Judge BH Loya's alleged and mysterious death case. Senior advocate Harish Salve, who is appearing on behalf of Maharashtra government, told the court Justice Loya died of cardiac arrest. "All of them have given statements during the discreet inquiry that they had been with Loya all along during his last hours and that there was no foul play or suspicion about the nature of death", he said.

The case was posted for hearing on February 2. "We like to see every record and won't restrict our attention to only those records produced by state". The SC, however, asked Dave not to cast aspersions as on date records suggested that Loya died a natural death. In fact, he said he had documents obtained under RTI to show there were indeed suspicious circumstances attached to judge Loya's death.

Justice Loya allegedly died after a massive heart attack. The sources said that Justice Misra has held deliberations with fellow judges and also taken into account the suggestions put forth by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and a clear-cut roster system is likely to be followed in the apex court for allocation of cases.

It asked Maharashtra to submit related documents, and barred all HCs from entertaining similar petitions.

The development comes days after the four senior-most SC judges in a presser alleged that the CJI, who is the master of the roster, was arbitrarily assigning important cases to select benches headed by junior judges. At the time of his death, he was the presiding judge in the controversial Sohrabuddin Sheikh "fake encounter" case in which BJP president Amit Shah was then a key accused.

In another face off between the rival lawyers, Jaising objected to Salve saying that the confidentiality of whatever material they will share with the counsel for petitioners and interveners be maintained and not shared with media, noting that it is like seeking a gag order against media. "Let us look at the matter dispassionately and objectively". Of course, it is a serious issue.

Senior advocate Dave, representing an intervenor, contended that Salve, Rohatgi, and senior advocate Pallav Sisodia, representing a PIL petitioner here, had earlier appeared for BJP president Shah, who was the sole beneficiary in the matter. Each of you is the judge of his own conscience. "We should now allow anyone say that this institution [Supreme Court] is being used to protect an individual [Amit Shah]", he added. Jaising withdrew her comments and apologised.