The bench said if an enquiry commission is not inclined, an organisation or individual cannot demand that a person be summoned for questioning.
In a major relief to chief minister Narendra Modi, the Gujarat high court rejected a petition seeking direction to the Nanavati-Mehta commission of enquiry to summon the CM for questioning regarding his alleged role in the 2002 riots.
On Wednesday, the bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sonia Gokani ruled that the petition was not maintainable as, under section 8 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, the Nanavati-Mehta commission had the discretionary power to decide whom to summon. The bench further said that if an enquiry commission is not inclined, an organisation or individual cannot demand that a person be summoned for questioning.
Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), a civil rights organisation that has been representing some riot victims, had filed a petition in the high court after the commission, in 2009, rejected its plea to summon Modi.
The JSM wanted Modi summoned so that he could be cross-examined to determine his role in the communal riots of 2002 in which 3,000 people had died across the state. The commission had also filed a reply in the high court saying that its decision on the summoning Modi is not yet final.
The high court bench said the JSM could cross-examine Modi if the commission summoned him.
The JSM had sought summons to Modi and others on the basis of mobile call data CDs prepared by IPS officer Rahul Sharma. According to JSM, officials of the chief minister’s office, and former ministers Gordhan Zadafia and Ashok Bhatt had talked frequently during the riots with the accused of the Naroda Patiya and other massacre cases.
Dr Mukul Sinha, counsel for JSM, argued that as the state government had itself included the chief minister and then ministers in the probe commission’s scope of enquiry that was announced in the year 2004.
Hence, the commission ought to have summoned them or asked for their affidavits regarding the heinous incidents that had taken place in the state during the riots, Sinha said.
However, countering the arguments of JSM, advocate-general Kamal Trivedi contended that the commission had the prerogative to summon witnesses at any time and it had discretionary powers to do so under the law.
){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}
){kind=small}