NEW DELHI: The
Supreme Court rapped lawyer
Prashant Bhushan on Thursday for attempting “to create evidence to cast a doubt on circumstances” leading to judge B H Loya’s death.
A bench of Chief Justice
Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y
Chandrachud said: “What has happened here is that Bhushan adopted a dual mantle, assuming the character of a counsel for the intervenor (Centre for PIL) as well as an individual personally interested on behalf of the organisation of which he is a member.” Bhushan had cited a magazine report quoting Dr R K Sharma, formerly with
AIIMS, to say it was not a case of death due to heart attack but there were indications of brain trauma.
He had said “poisoning could not be ruled out”. He had obtained documents from the magazine and sent it to Dr
Upendra Kaul, a former professor of cardiology in AIIMS, who ruled out a heart attack.
Dr Sharma said he “had been grossly misquoted” by the magazine. “The conclusions drawn are imaginary. I had a general discussion with the reporter. I have not given any report regarding judge Loya’s death,” he said.
The
Maharashtra government filed opinions of experts, which differed from Dr Kaul’s. Dr Harish Pathak of KEM Hospital said, “The conclusions of the postmortem that the death was due to coronary artery insufficiency is valid.” Justice Chandrachud said, “From the material on record, it is evident that an effort has been made by Prashant Bhushan to collect evidence to somehow bolster the case of the petitioners, acting in personal capacity.” The bench said, “We are not considering whether the opinion of Dr Pathak should be preferred to what was opined by Dr Kaul.
The point of the matter is that facts have emerged from the record which indicate that a carefully orchestrated attempt has been made… to create evidence to cast a doubt on the circumstances leading to the death of judge Loya.” It added, “He (Bhushan) has gone to the length of personally collecting evidence to somehow bolster the case.
The manner in which the opinion of Dr Kaul was obtained on the basis of a laconic questionnaire leaves much to be desired and is a singular reflection on the lack of objectivity which is to be expected from counsel appearing before this court. This has bordered on an attempt to misrepresent the facts and mislead the court.”
