TEHSEEN POONAWALLA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2018]  9  S.C.R. 1
         1
                 TEHSEEN POONAWALLA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2018)
APRIL 19, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.32 – Judge Loya death case –
Writ petitions seeking inquiry into the circumstances of the death of
the Judge who was presiding over the criminal trial wherein one of
the accused was the National President of the Bharatiya Janata
Party (then Minister of State for Home in the State of Gujarat)–
Petitions based on two articles published in the “Caravan” magazine
raising suspicion about unnatural death of the Judge as opposed
to his natural death due to heart attack – Petitioners inter alia
questioned the conduct of the colleagues of the Judge in attending
to him – Held: Issue in the present case is whether the Judge died a
natural or unnatural death – Conduct of his colleagues in attending
to him is not in question – To attribute motives to his colleagues
who were with him is absurd, if not motivated – They did their best
under the circumstances, acting entirely in good faith – There is no
reason to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the said
judicial officers – Documentary material on record indicates that
the Judge died due to natural causes – Members of the family of
the Judge disassociated themselves from the statements attributed
to them in the Caravan publication – No ground to hold that there
was a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstances of
death which would merit a further inquiry – Conduct of the
petitioners and the intervenors lack bona fides, scandalizes the
process of Court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt –
However, criminal contempt proceedings are chosen not to be
initiated – No merit in the writ petitions – Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.174 – Inquest report
under – Purpose of – Writ petitions seeking inquiry into the
circumstances of the death of the Judge who was presiding over the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
criminal trial wherein one of the accused was the National President
of the Bharatiya Janata Party (then Minister of State for Home in
the State of Gujarat) – Plea of writ petitioners that there was no
investigation/inquiry carried out by the police in the inquest u/s.174
– Held: Purpose of holding an inquest is limited – Inquest report
does not constitute substantive evidence – Hence, matters relating
to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him and under
what circumstances are beyond the scope of the report – Inquest
report is primarily intended to ascertain the nature of the injuries
and the apparent cause of death.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. IX, rr.1, 2 – Cross-
examination under, of the deponent of an affidavit – Petitioners
questioned the discreet enquiry conducted by the State following
the articles published in Caravan magazine raising suspicion as to
unnatural death of the Judge who was presiding over the criminal
trial wherein one of the accused was the National President of the
Bharatiya Janata Party (then Minister of State for Home in the State
of Gujarat) – Plea of petitioners that doctors and judicial officers
whose statements were recorded during the course of enquiry be
first directed to file an affidavit and then allowed to be cross-
examined – Held: Under Or.IX of the 2013 Rules discretion is vested
in the court to allow cross-examination of a person who has filed
an affidavit – Petitioners moved Supreme Court in a petition filed
in public interest and their position is that of a relator who seeks to
bring a grievance to the attention of the Court for the purpose of
seeking court mandated inquiry – None of the persons whose cross-
examination has been sought is a witness in the present proceedings
– Petitioners cannot assert as of right that they should be allowed
to cross-examine – No justification to allow the request for cross-
examination – Constitution of India – Art.32.
Public Interest Litigation – Purpose of, and its misuse –
Discussed – Constitution of India – Arts.32 and 226.
Judicial Discipline – Recusal of Judges – Held: A decision
as to whether a judge should hear a case is a matter of conscience
for the judge.
       Judge Loya was presiding over the criminal trial arising out
of the encounter killings wherein one of the accused was Shri
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
‘AS’, National President of the Bharatiya J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.