Questions About the Petitioners in the Judge Loya Case

According to IANS on January 22, the Supreme Court of India through a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra called the death of CBI Special Judge B. H. Loya a ‘serious matter’ and transferred to itself the two petitions pending before the Bombay High Court filed by the Bombay Lawyers’ Association, and its Nagpur Bench filed by RTI activist, Suraj Lolage. The Court directed that all materials relating to Judge Loya’s death and the circumstances leading to it should be placed before the new bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. The future of the case is now in the hands of the CJI, as he has taken up hearing the case and transferred the two petitions pending in the Bombay High Court. The next hearing for the matter has been listed as February 2.

An article in Caravan has raised some interesting questions about the ‘Judge Loya’ Case. The questions raised are about the petitioners. The Judge Loya Case is the result of two petitions that were filed by Tehseen Poonawala and Bandhuraj Sambhaji Lone respectively. Poonawala had filed his petition on December 12, 2017, and Lone had filed his on January 11, 2018.

Poonawala is a Congress Party Worker, though Kapil Sibal has distanced himself and the party from the case stating that they were not informed. Lone on the other hand though identified as a journalist by the media, had been out of work for many years. His latest activity has been through his association with Ashish Shelar, the head of Mumbai’s BJP unit.

Poonawala’s brother Shehzad Poonawala had earlier created a storm by declaring that the election of Rahul Gandhi within the Congress was rigged. This statement occurred at the time the Gujarat Elections were underway. The result was that the BJP congratulated the bravery of Shehzad Poonawala, though his brother has distanced himself from him. Lone on the other hand had worked for several left leaning newspapers.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave who appeared on behalf of Poonawala expressed his displeasure at the petition. He felt that the petition was ‘self-serving’ and possibly a ‘set-up’. He reached this conclusion from the behavior of the petitioner. The petition had initially been allotted to Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Mohan Shantagoudar, two judges who do not comprise a part of the collegium. Dave had recommended to Poonawala that he should apply to the Chief Justice to have the petition heard by another Bench. To this Poonawala refused. Dave had also expressed disbelief at how quickly the petitions were taken up, considering that petitions relating to the matter were already pending before the Bombay High Court.