PIL seeks reason for Gujarat riots panel extension

A bench of the Gujarat high court, on Thursday, sought explanation from the state government asking it to state the reason behind the nine-month extension granted to the Nanavati and Mehta commission, probing the 2002 communal riots.

The bench also sought rules of appointment of the Additional Public Prosecutors (APPs) to the HC from the government. This was based on an allegation that both sons of justice GT Nanavati, chairman of the commission, were enjoying government lawyers’ post.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the huge expenditure incurred by the government on the Nanavati commission. On Thursday, KG Pandit, counsel for petitioner Jignesh Goswami, filed an application raising objection to the nine-month extension given to the commission by the state government recently.

Pandit raised the issue that the state government ought to have taken permission of the high court as it granted the extension when the matter was sub-judice. The counsel also raised an issue as to how Nanavati’s sons - Dhaval and Maulik - are acting as government lawyers in HC.

To this, acting chief justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya questioned advocate general Kamal Trivedi about the scope of the commission and why it was granted the extension in addition to hiring of Nanavati’s sons for the services of the government.

In his reply, the AG said that the commission is inquiring whether there was any role or negligence on part of the government officers, ministers and others. On this, justice Bhattacharya pointed out that if the officers were negligent in their duty, it amounts to criminal offence.

Raising issue of huge public expenditure over the riot inquiry commission, Goswami, in the PIL has sought details regarding how long the Nanavati commission would function and when it intended to submit its final report. Earlier, the state government had said that the commission is likely to submit the report before March 31.