Judge Loya had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014. (File)
An investigation will be ordered into the death of judge BH Loya if there is some ground for suspicion, the Supreme Court said on Monday while hearing petitions calling for an independent inquiry. The court said it was looking into "every aspect of the documents and material in minute detail" after it was asked to order an investigation in "public interest" by the lawyer representing the petitioners.
"If our conscience is aroused to order inquiry, we will not hesitate to order Investigation into the death in public interest," said the three-judge bench that's hearing the case that's seen as politically sensitive.
Judge Loya had died of a heart attack in Nagpur in December 2014, while hearing a murder case in which BJP chief Amit Shah was an accused. The judge who replaced him ruled that there was no evidence against Mr Shah to merit a trial. Last year, in an interview to the Caravan magazine, Judge Loya's sister had raised questions about his death, triggering calls for an independent investigation.
The petitioners' contention, however, was opposed by the Maharashtra government. Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing the state, told the court, "Apart from politics, there is nothing amiss in the death of Loya and no further probe is necessary". Calling the petitions "extraneous", he said they had been filed with "oblique motive".
Mr Rohatgi said just because the judge was connected with a criminal case in which a person heading a political party was discharged, his death was being "politicized" - an allegation that has also been made by judge's Loya's son Anuj Loya.
Justice DY Chandrachud, one of the judges in the bench, said, "We treat it (the case) as a public cause and we are not concerned with what is happening outside this court". Endorsing Justice Chandrachud's observation, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who was heading the bench, said, "We are not concerned with petitioners' locus standi or bonafides in filing the petition."
The assignment of this case was one of the issues that triggered the unprecedented rift within judiciary earlier this year. The case was reassigned after four of the most senior judges publicly alleged that cases with "far-reaching consequences" were being assigned to junior judges.
The case will be heard again on March 5.