2018 (4) TMI 1855 - SC - Indian Laws

Lodging of FIR - whether the death of Judge Loya was due to natural causes or as alleged by the Petitioners (relying on the contents of news items or material which has come before the Court) there are circumstances which raise a reasonable suspicion about an unnatural death warranting an inquiry or investigation on the directions of this Court? - should the contents of a news Article by itself be made the basis to lodge an FIR Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973? HELD THAT - The point of the matter is that facts have emerged from the record which indicate that a carefully orchestrated attempt has been made during the course of these hearings on behalf of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation to create evidence to cast a doubt on the circumstances leading to the death of Judge Loya. In their practice before this Court Counsel are expected to assist the court with a sense of objectivity in aid of justice. What has happened here is that Mr. Prashant Bhushan has adopted a dual mantle assuming the character of a counsel for the intervenor as well as an individual personally interested on behalf of the intervening organisation of which he is a member. He 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. The insinuation is against the judges of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur for having quashed a criminal case in which the present Chief Minister was involved. We are not called upon to evaluate the merits of the decision save and except to note that the High Court in quashing the proceedings placed reliance on a decision of this Court and had noted that the dispute was admittedly private in nature where no element of public law was involved. The attempt of the Petitioners is to create prejudice and to malign the dignity of the judges particularly of Justice BR Gavai. Copies of the criminal application and of the order of the Bombay High Court form part of the same compilation in which is also annexed a copy of the Article published in the Indian Express of 27 November 2017 referring to the statements of Justice Gavai and Justice Shukre. This is another instance in the course of the hearing of the present case where a matter extraneous to the subject of the inquiry before the court has been sought to be relied upon to somehow sensationalise the case. What is worse is the manner in which wholly unfounded aspersions have been cast on the judges of the Bombay High Court following a decision which has been taken in the judicial capacity. This constitutes a serious attempt to scandalise the court and obstruct the course of justice. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which upon due scrutiny are found to promote a personal business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation - Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the Rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly counsel for the Petitioners and intervenors have attempted to inform the court that they have no personal agenda and that they have instituted these proceedings to protect judicial independence. An aura of good faith has been sought to be created by submitting that the true purpose of seeking an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Judge Loya is to protect the district judiciary. But as the submissions have evolved it has become clear that the petition is a veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary and to dilute the credibility of judicial institutions. Judicial review is a potent weapon to preserve the Rule of law. However here we have been confronted with a spate of scurrilous allegations. Absent any title of proof that they are conspirators in a murder the court must stand by the statements of the judicial officers. The judges of the district judiciary are vulnerable to wanton attacks on their independence. This Court would be failing in its duty if it were not to stand by them. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petitions. There is no reason for the court to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the four judicial officers. The documentary material on the record indicates that the death of Judge Loya was due to natural causes. There is no ground for the court to hold that there was a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstances of death which would merit a further inquiry - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya.
2. Allegations of inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding Judge Loya's death.
3. Validity and reliability of the discreet inquiry conducted by the State Intelligence Department.
4. Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officials involved in the inquiry.
5. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ulterior motives.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya:
The Petitioners sought an inquiry into the death of Judge Brijgopal Harikishan Loya, who died on 1 December 2014. The death was reported to be due to a heart attack while he was in Nagpur attending a wedding. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of his death, including the medical records, statements of judicial officers who were present, and the post-mortem report. The Court found that the death was due to natural causes, specifically coronary artery insufficiency, and there was no evidence to suggest foul play.

2. Allegations of inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding Judge Loya's death:
The Petitioners and intervenors raised several allegations, including inconsistencies in the medical records, the absence of Judge Loya's name in the occupancy register of Ravi Bhavan, and the conduct of the judicial officers present with him. The Court analyzed these allegations and found no substantial evidence to support them. The statements of the judicial officers were found to be consistent and credible. The Court also noted that minor discrepancies in the records were not sufficient to cast doubt on the natural cause of death.

3. Validity and reliability of the discreet inquiry conducted by the State Intelligence Department:
A discreet inquiry was conducted by the State Intelligence Department following the publication of articles in Caravan magazine. The inquiry involved recording statements from judicial officers and examining medical records. The Petitioners questioned the validity of this inquiry, but the Court found it to be thorough and credible. The inquiry report concluded that Judge Loya's death was due to natural causes, and the Court found no reason to doubt this conclusion.

4. Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officials involved in the inquiry:
The Petitioners sought to cross-examine several individuals, including judicial officers and medical professionals. The Court rejected this request, stating that cross-examination was not warranted in this case. The Court emphasized that the statements of the judicial officers were credible and consistent, and there was no need for further examination.

5. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ulterior motives:
The Court expressed concern over the misuse of PIL for personal or political agendas. It noted that the present case appeared to be an attempt to malign the judiciary and create a sensation without any substantial basis. The Court warned against the misuse of PIL, stating that it detracts from genuine cases that require judicial attention and undermines public faith in the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the allegations of foul play in Judge Loya's death. The Court upheld the findings of the discreet inquiry, which concluded that the death was due to natural causes. The Court also highlighted the misuse of PIL and the need to protect the judiciary from baseless allegations.