tells HC there should be no outside officer in SIT.
The state government on Wednesday objected to bring any outside member, especially from the CBI, into the existing SIT probing the Ishrat Jahan case. The objection came through an affidavit filed by the state.
During hearing on Wednesday, advocate-general Kamal Trivedi showed strong reservations over the proposal of the high court to induct officers from the CBI in the SIT. "There is no need to induct officers from outside as it will affect the morale of the state police. Even there are no allegations or complaints raised against the SIT till date," he told the court.
On Tuesday, the division bench of Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Abhilasha Kumari of Gujarat High Court had asked the state what its response would be if the court were to re-constitute the SIT and if an officer from a central agency was to be appointed in the re-constituted SIT. On Monday, the state had objected to a CBI probe in the case.
In his affidavit, state home secretary TS Bist raised the issue of the two affidavits filed by the central government in the case. "Earlier, the state government had rightly taken the stand that this is not a fit case in which the high court should exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the CBI for an investigation," said Bist's affidavit.
According to his affidavit, the central government suddenly took a summersault and while referring to magistrate SP Tamang's report expressed its preparedness for handing over the case to the CBI. "Such a stand of the central government should be seriously taken by the court to ensure that non-germane purpose is not sought to be achieved by any litigant," it said. Referring to the data of encounters in the country, Bist said Gujarat has a minimum number of such encounters despite the fact that it faces a serious terrorist threat in view of its geographical proximity to Pakistan.
"The central government may kindly be called upon to point out in how many encounter cases in other states it has shown its overzealous preparedness to take up the investigation by the CBI," he said in the affidavit.
Regarding no necessity of an investigation by CBI, the state said: "Several more serious and heinous offences having national and international ramifications in recent past like Parliament attack, 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai, the Akshardham terrorist attack and serial bomb blast cases were investigated by the local police."
On behalf of the Centre, assistant solicitor-general Pankaj Champaneri argued that they are ready to taken up investigation by the CBI in the case.
Referring to their two affidavits, Champaneri said: "The intelligence inputs of central government should not be taken as conclusive evidence, the state police should verify first before taking any adverse actions."
Champaneri brought to the court's notice an order in which the Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that the state government had not showed proper approach in the investigation of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}