Dushyant Dave Concludes His Arguments, Prashant Bhushan’s Submissions Commence

On March 8, Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave appearing on behalf of the Bombay Lawyers’ Association concluded his arguments in the Judge Loya death hearings. Following which Advocate Prashant Bhushan began his arguments on behalf of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation. Dave began his submissions by rejecting the contentions of the respondents on the basis that despite him having made numerous submissions the respondents have neither responded to them nor made any reference to them. He then challenged the ‘discreet investigation’ ordered by the Maharashtra government on three main grounds; the timing of the investigation, that the government is opposed to the petition, and the ambiguity over the investigation report, apart from certain discrepancies within the report.

Dave argued that the state government ordered the investigation within two days of the Caravan article. On this basis he raised questions over the motive for ordering the investigation, alleging that it was done in anticipation that a petition may be filed asking for an independent inquiry. Referring to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Senior Counsel stated that the purpose of a PIL is not adversarial in nature, it is instead meant to challenge the government to prove that it is discharging its constitutional obligations fairly and adequately. On this basis, if the government is satisfied that the discreet investigation was conducted in a proper manner and its findings accurate, then why oppose an independent inquiry? Further, despite the investigation report having been submitted, the Maharashtra government has neither accepted the findings nor rejected them.

Regarding the discrepancies in the report, Dave raised questions over the fact that a letter sent by the investigation commissioner was replied to on the same day, despite the letter seeking such details that could not have been accessed within a few hours. He further questioned the alleged letter sent by Judge Loya’s son to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and demanded that the letter be presented in Court.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan began by raising questions over the ECG report which was said to have been conducted on Judge Loya. He submitted that the report had been reviewed by Dr Upendra Kaul, a Padma Shri, who concluded in a written opinion that the report is not of a person who had a heart attack between one to two hours earlier. Bhushan then referred to the histopathology report which found that the despite the narrowing of arteries and congestion in the brain, the heart and surrounding tissue appeared normal. This is an anomaly as, during a heart attack, one part of the heart dies, which would have been revealed in the report.