Petitioners named & shamed for bid to scandalise judiciary

The Supreme Court on Thursday made stinging criticism against the lawyers who represented the petitioners seeking an independent probe into judge BH Loya’s death.

Though the court was of the view that the petitioners/interveners were liable to face criminal contempt for shunning objectivity and misrepresenting facts, the Bench refused to go that far. Nevertheless, it highlighted the conduct of each lawyer who appeared for the petitioners.

About lawyer Prashant Bhushan, the court noted that he held a “dual mantle” as a lawyer appearing for an intervener and as member of Centre for Public Interest Litigation, one of the intervening organisations.

The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud commented on how Bhushan showed individual personal interest in the case by personally collecting evidence, in the form of medical opinion from doctors, to bolster the case. The Bench observed, “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.” Further, it was Bhushan who demanded recusal of Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud, since they belonged from Maharashtra. The court refused to bite the bait suggesting this would amount to abdication of duty.

Another senior lawyer Dushyant Dave, who appeared for Bombay Lawyers’ Association, was not spared for making insinuations against High Court judge BR Gavai showing an order passed by him quashing a criminal case against Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in an unrelated private property dispute of 1991. The Bench saw this ploy to “sensationalise” the case and wondered how wholly unfounded aspersions were cast on judges of the High Court by relying on decisions taken by them in their judicial capacity. The court noted, “This constitutes a serious attempt to scandalise the court and obstruct the course of justice.” His demand to cross-examine doctors and judicial officers related to the case met the disapproval of the court in the absence of any basis or justification to doubt their claims.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for Admiral Ramdas, an intervenor, had sought to punch holes in the evidence gathered in the case, the versions put forth by the judges accompanying Loya, the medical records, and contradictions in statements made in post mortem report and persons related to the case. All the submissions were discarded as false and unverified. The allegation that Loya was not provided a car till the hospital was termed by the Bench as “red herring”. A further suggestion that the judges accompanying Loya did not visit the deceased judge’s family was also found to be incorrect. “There is no reason for this court to discard the consistent statements of the three judicial officers by engaging in surmises of the nature sought to be drawn by counsel for petitioners.”

Senior advocate V Giri also appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners in the written submissions filed by his assisting counsel alleged that the judges accompanying Loya were “co-conspirators” in his murder. Finding no fault in the conduct of judges, the Bench said, the judicial officers acted in good faith and rejected the allegations as an attempt to malign judicial officers.

Such conduct of the petitioners and intervenors prima facie constitutes criminal contempt, observed the Bench, and said, “We have chosen not to initiate contempt proceedings if only not to give an impression that the litigants and lawyers appearing for them have been subjected to an unequal battle with the authority of law.” It vouched on the moral authority held by court to assert credibility of judicial process rather than flexing judicial muscle by initiating contempt.