Ahmedabad, February 01: The Gujarat high court rejected an application seeking direction to the Nanavati commission to summon chief minister Narendra Modi and question him in regard with the 2002 riots.
A division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani upheld a single judge’s order passed in November 2009, and observed that the issue of summoning any person was the discretion of the quasi-judicial body, which could take decision on the basis of its appreciation of evidence gathered during the proceedings.
A civil rights organization – Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM) had sought Modi and his three secretaries to be summoned by the probe panel, as they could be cross-examined on basis of the call records gathered by IPS Rahul Sharma. This is because the call details reflect that the three secretaries were in constant touch with the riots accused. The JSM has been alleging complicity of chief minister’s office in the riots.
The commission rejected JSM’s plea with an observation that it had not found any substantial evidence to summon the chief minister. The commission did not summon the secretaries – Tanmay Mehta, OP Singh, Sanjay Bhavsar, but ordered them to file affidavits explaining their telephonic conversations with the riots accused in 2002.
Aggrieved with the order, the JSM moved the HC contending that in 2004, the state government had widened the scope of inquiry of the commission and empowered it to summon and question ministers including the chief minister to find out their role in the riots. The JSM argued that since the state government itself empowered the commission with a view to find out the role of the chief minister, the probe panel was duty bound to summon Modi, particularly on the basis of the evidence that had come on record.
Justice K S Jhaveri rejected JSM’s petition, which led to filing of an appeal before a division bench in 2010. Then chief justice S J Mukhopadhaya entertained the appeal and sought answers on various occasions from the commission, which maintained that the rejection of the JSM application was an interlocutory order.
Finally, when the final hearing took place, the HC found that it was the commission’s discretion to summon a person on the basis of evidence, and rejected the plea.
–Source: TOI