The hearings in the Judge Loya case in the Supreme Court follow a pattern – uneventful from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, and dramatic and heated post 3.30 pm..It was no different today as Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Dushyant Dave advanced their submissions before the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud..Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, resumed his arguments and recounted the facts of the case..He relied on the report of the police – largely based on the statements of the four judges – to buttress his case that the death of Judge Loya was natural and there was nothing suspicious about it..“The judges have given their statements on their letterheads. Every part of the Caravan article is wrong and baseless. The article came out three years after the incident”, Rohatgi submitted, before making lengthy submissions for an hour and a half..After Rohatgi concluded at 3.30 pm, Dushyant Dave commenced his rejoinder arguments. The hearing, which up until then was uneventful, sprung to life..Before coming to the merits of the case, Dave told the Court about the notice issued to him by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for professional misconduct..“BCI has issued notice to me for appearing in this matter. I just want to bring it to Your Lordships notice. Your Lordships can understand the pressure which is being exerted”, Dave said..The Bench replied that it won’t go into all that, since that is not the issue before the Court. Dave replied that he was only bringing the same to the notice of the Court, and was not seeking intervention of the Court in that matter..Dave then proceeded to express his objection to the procedure being followed by the Court in hearing the matter without issuing notice to the State and requiring it to make its submissions on affidavit..“With all due respect, the procedure Your Lordships are following is not …[unclear]. This is not a matter which can be dismissed in limine. This is a matter in which pleadings have to be completed. Your Lordships Rules mandate that every statement must be on oath..I don’t understand why Your Lordships are reluctant to issue notice and ask the State to respond on affidavit. I have never seen a writ petition in which …[unclear].”.This led to a brief discussion between Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice DY Chandrachud..Subsequently, Dave responded to allegations of political motives being attributed to him..“We appear not because it is politically motivated. If a judge has died in suspicious circumstances, the Bench and the Bar has the responsibility to stand up…[unclear]. I had appeared for AB Vajpayee in this court and succeeded.”.Dave then referred to Justice Chandrachud’s comments during the last hearing, wherein he had asked Dave and Pallav Shishodia to be careful with their language and to be mindful of the portraits of the two former Supreme Court judges watching the proceedings..“Not only the two judges but four sitting judges of this court – two on the left and two on the right – are also watching and have expressed their reservations about the manner in which this case was handled”, said Dave..Justice Dipak Misra went on to remark that if the Bench finds anything that warrants a probe, it will look into the same. Dave replied,.“We are grateful to Your Lordships for allowing us to argue. But there is a set procedure. Documents cannot be handed over by the Bar. They have to be brought on record. I have been a lawyer for 41 years. I have never come across a single instance when documents are handed across the Bar.”.Rohatgi, however, intervened, stating that Dave was not correct..“A writ petition can be dismissed ex-parte. It can be dismissed after hearing other party on caveat. There is no mandate to file counter, rejoinder etc.”, said Rohatgi..Dave said that the State was placing heavy reliance on the statements of four judges who had claimed that they were with Judge Loya during his death..“If the Court is relying on the statements of the four judges, then they should be on affidavit. A particular person holding a high office does not mean we have to accept his statement. The stance adopted by State of Maharashtra is strange. It is not clear why the State is reluctant to file its response on affidavit.”.The Court rose for the day, not before Senior Advocate Pallav Shishodia accused Dave of putting pressure on him by speaking to Senior Advocate Ashok Desai about the controversial case. Dave denied the same while maintaining that there is conflict of interest in Shishodia appearing for the petitioner since he had appeared for Amit Shah earlier..The matter will now be heard on March 5 at 2 pm..Read Dushyant Dave’s written submissions below.
