EW DELHI: Dushyant Dave, the counsel for the petitioner seeking an independent probe into the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, on Monday filed a fresh plea in the Supreme Court seeking permission to cross-examine those who have given statements in the case.
Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, died of cardiac arrest on December 1, 2014, when he was in Nagpur to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter.
Earlier in the day, there was a heated exchange of words among senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Pallav Sisodia, and Justice D Y Chandrachud.
Dave, appearing for the Bombay Lawyers Association, alleged that people were trying to silence him, and referred to the Bar Council of India notice issued to him to take away his right of practice.
As Dave and Sisodia engaged in a verbal duel, Justice Chandrachud tried to intervene. “You shall not shout me down,” he told Dave. Dave retorted, “I will not listen to you.” “You shall listen when a judge speaks to you,” answered Justice Chandrachud. Expressing concern over the way the Judge Loya case had been entertained so far, Dave said, “Judges should act according to their conscience.”
Justice Chandrachud responded, “We will examine every aspect of the case and please do not tell us how to look into our conscience.”
Advocate V V Giri, appearing for Tehseen Poonawalla, one of the petitioners, told the bench that it was not on record as to what treatment was provided to Judge B H Loya in the Nagpur hospital he was rushed to after he suffered a heart attack.
Sisodia, appearing for another petitioner, Bandhuraj Lone, told the bench, “An independent probe cannot be a one-way traffic when people making allegations can hit and run after casting aspersions on the judiciary.”
Dave said, “The nature of your submissions has exposed you. This petition was filed here so that the matter could be buried.”
Sisodia responded, “We do not care what you think. You can go to hell or heaven or anywhere.”
Justice Chandrachud then said, “Let us not reduce the level of dialogue in this court to that of a fish market.” The arguments remained inconclusive and will resume on February 9.