A day after Justice Brijgopal Harkishan Loya’s son addressed a press conference about the death of his father, a panel of lawyers, journalists and editors of media organisations discussed the questions around Justice Loya's death at a public meeting organised by the All-India People’s Forum in New Delhi on Monday, 15 January.
The panellists spoke about how a case such as this had an impact on our democracy, and the judiciary in particular.
Justice Loya was a special CBI judge who was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case – in which BJP chief Amit Shah is the main accused. The Supreme Court judges, who held an unprecedented press conference on 12 January, hinted that allocation of the case to a particular bench of judges was a cause for concern.
The panelists included The Caravan’s political editor Hartosh Singh Bal, senior advocate Indira Jaising, journalist Niranjan Takle who broke the Justice Loya’s death story, and advocate Uday Gawre from the Latur Bar Association. Kavita Krishnan, IAPF’s organiser also spoke about the death.
“If I Was Scared, I Wouldn’t Have Proceeded With the Story”
The Caravan reporter Niranjan Takle’s story – ‘A Family Breaks Its Silence: Shocking Details Emerge In Death Of Judge Presiding Over Sohrabuddin Trial’ – created ripples with Justice Loya’s family listing inconsistencies of facts surrounding the death of the special CBI judge.
Takle said that he would not have done the story if he was “scared of the authorities.” “The primary job of a journalist is to tell the truth and shame the devil.”
He said that under no circumstances should one stop “questioning.” Takle revealed details of how to got the members of the family to talk, stressing that Anuj, Justice Loya’s son, did not want to talk to the media even as he did not “trust either the media or the judiciary.”
When I had gone to Latur to interview Justice Loya’s father for the first time, someone called him and asked who had come to visit him and why the person’s car was outside his house. Loya’s father responded saying a person had come to ask for directions and was eventually invited for tea.Niranjan Takle, The Caravan reporter
“Was Anuj Free to Speak, Free to Look at Evidence?”
The Caravan’s political editor, Hartosh Singh Bal, who was instrumental in publishing Takle’s story, asked if Anuj had the freedom to speak and look at the evidence that is available on his father’s death.
After watching Anuj Loya’s press conference, let me put myself in the shoes of Amit Shah. He is probably the second-most powerful person in the country. He has no reason to be afraid of the questions surrounding Loya’s death. He should be the first person go to the Supreme Court and ask for impartial probe.Hartosh Singh Bal, political editor, The Caravan
Bal added that the case is not a standalone case, and one has to date it back to former Gujarat home minister Hiran Pandya’s death. Lack of records showing Justice Loya was present in the VIP guest house in Nagpur (where he was said to have had the heart attack), no eyewitness who came forward, and the error in ECG date by the hospital are enough reasons to further probe his death.
“This Isn’t an Ordinary Case”
Advocate Uday Gaware of the Latur Bar Association was associated with Justice Loya for decades. Narrating how many judges who had visited Latur to attend Loya’s funeral said “Loya has been betrayed,” Gaware said that now was the time to talk about it. He alleged that even though people knew some “details” related to Justice Loya’s death, they never spoke about it.
Retired Bombay High Court judge BG Kolse Patil reiterated that Justice Loya’s death case should not be seen as an isolated case and that the role of the entire judiciary was at stake. He said this case was “not ordinary,” adding that one must think about all events that preceded the judge’s death.
Patil added that in today’s scenario, telling the truth was considered “wrong” but one must still strive to tell the truth.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Indira Jaising said she was curious to know if the executive was “interfering” with the judiciary. The real players “in this game” were behind a veil, and the judiciary could collapse from within, only if the government “wants it to collapse” from within.
In 1975 (at the time of Emergency), judges set an example by resigning. But now, judges have realised that resigning won’t do the judiciary any favour. These four judges have made a bigger favour by speaking out.Indira Jaising, senior supreme court advocate
Jaising added that if one judge can be killed, many others could also be murdered.
(We Indians have much to talk about these days. But what would you tell India if you had the chance? Pick up the phone and write or record your Letter To India. Don’t be silent, tell her how you feel. Mail us your letter at lettertoindia@thequint.com. We’ll make sure India gets your message.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)