PIL challenging extensions to Nanavati panel dismissed by Guj High Court

The court said that the role of the Commission formed in March 2002, was to give recommendations to the govt

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction for Nananvati Commission with regard to submission of final report and challenging repeated extensions given to the panel, probing 2002 riots.

A division bench of Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala dismissed the PIL saying that it was 'devoid of merits'.

The court said that the role of the Commission formed in March 2002, was to give recommendations to the government. Their recommendations were not binding to the government, they added.

They agreed with the argument of the Advocate General on behalf of the government, that repeated extensions (18 times) given to the commission did not affect the rights of the petitioner neither does it infringe upon the legal and fundamental rights of any citizen. Court was of the opinion that it was not within its purview to issue directions to the Commission to concluded its inquiry and submit report in a given time period.

 

It concluded that delay in proceeding of the Commission cannot be termed as waste of financial resources. The Commission had told the court that it was awaiting some investigation papers from the Supreme Court appointed special investigation team (SIT) with regard to three riot cases which was part of their probe. The panel had said that since SIT had sought directions from the SC to share investigation findings with the commission there was delay in completing the final report and hence it was given extension by the government till December 2012. The PIL filed last year had raised objection to the commission’s work and also leveled allegations that there was a nexus between the chairman of the commission and the state government. It cited media reports saying both the sons of panel chairman retired justice G T Nanavati were hired by the state government after constitution of the probe panel. The proceedings on this issue lasted for nearly a year with various allegations leveled against the state government. Petitioner’s counsel K G Pandit had even objected to the extensions granted to the probe panel even after a decade of its constitution.