Here's what the Supreme Court said about the dangers of 'vested interest litigations' while dismissing the Judge Loya petitions

Republic TV has accessed the full order copy of the Supreme Court's judgment on Thursday dismissing all petitions that had challenged the 'natural death' angle in Judge Loya's death and had sought an independent probe in the matter.

Earlier, it had been revealed that the Supreme Court bench had used strong language while dismissing the petitions, calling them 'veiled interest litigation', while the BJP has since called it an attempt to misuse the judiciary to settle a political score. 

Now, the 114-page judgment has revealed the true extent of the strong views expressed by the bench, the main sections of which can be found below - 

In its conclusion, the three-judge-bench writes:

"We have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petitions. There is no reason for the court to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the four judicial officers. The documentary material on the record indicates that the death of Judge Loya was due to natural causes. There is no ground for the court to hold that there was a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstances of death which would merit a further inquiry."

WATCH | Politically-motivated Allegations Can't Mislead Judiciary, Says Home Minister Rajnath Singh After Supreme Court's Loya Judgment

On the page immediately prior to the conclusion, the order reveals its anguish at the manner in which the proceedings were conducted but states the reasons why it didn't initiate contempt proceedings:

"Though Mr Bhushan ultimately made it clear that he is not filing an application for recusal -- and none has been filed -- we have recorded what transpired to express our sense of anguish at the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted. Serious attacks have been made on the credibility of two judges of the Bombay High Court. The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt. However, on a dispassionate view of the matter, we have chosen not to initiate proceedings by way of criminal contempt if only not to give an impression that the litigants and the lawyers appearing for them have been subjected to an unequal battle with the authority of law. We rest in the hope that the Bar of the nation is resilient to withstand such attempts on the judiciary."

WATCH | Despite SC's Loya Judgment, Congress Raises More Questions; Tables "valid Apprehensions And Questions Surrounding Judge Loya's Death"

In paragraph 73 of the order, the court order speaks about the misuse of public interest litigation:

"The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial of the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interest litigations. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."