The affidavit further stated that though the SIT had handed over most of the papers, it was yet to provide some classified documents as it was waiting for the Supreme Court clearance. It files affidavit stating Nanavati-Mehta commission is an independent entity, outside its purview.
The state government on Thursday informed the high court that it could not direct the Nanavati-Mehta commission, set up to inquire into the 2002 riot cases, to wind up its work and issue the final report till it completed all processes.
Pankaj Dave, under secretary in the home department, filed an affidavit before a bench of acting chief justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Jamshed Pardiwala in connection with a petition filed by Jignesh Goswami.
Goswami’s contention is that the commission has been probing the cases for nine years and a huge amount of public money has been spent. The petition also sought to blame the government for giving the panel an extension of nine months in March.
According to the affidavit, the commission had asked for an extension as it is in the process of acquiring documents from the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which probed the 2002 riot cases. The affidavit further stated that though the SIT had handed over most of the papers, it was yet to provide some classified documents as it was waiting for the Supreme Court clearance.
“The commission, being a fact-finding body, appears to have directed the SIT to supply requisite material available with it,” the affidavit states, adding the commission’s efforts were directed toward gathering facts from all possible sources to finalise its report.
The affidavit further said that except for the terms of reference, the state government was not in a position to fix a time limit for submission of the report. “The commission is independent and, therefore, it is not within the purview of the state government,” the affidavit states.
The government also doubted the political motive behind the petition. “The anxiety on part of the petitioner appears to be more of a political nature, which does not appear to be bonafide,” the affidavit states, adding that if the petitioner was so concerned with the delay, he should have aired his grievances at the appropriate forum much earlier.
The state government on Thursday informed the high court that it could not direct the Nanavati-Mehta commission, set up to inquire into the 2002 riot cases, to wind up its work and issue the final report till it completed all processes.
Pankaj Dave, under secretary in the home department, filed an affidavit before a bench of acting chief justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Jamshed Pardiwala in connection with a petition filed by Jignesh Goswami.
Goswami’s contention is that the commission has been probing the cases for nine years and a huge amount of public money has been spent. The petition also sought to blame the government for giving the panel an extension of nine months in March.
According to the affidavit, the commission had asked for an extension as it is in the process of acquiring documents from the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which probed the 2002 riot cases. The affidavit further stated that though the SIT had handed over most of the papers, it was yet to provide some classified documents as it was waiting for the Supreme Court clearance.
“The commission, being a fact-finding body, appears to have directed the SIT to supply requisite material available with it,” the affidavit states, adding the commission’s efforts were directed toward gathering facts from all possible sources to finalise its report.
The affidavit further said that except for the terms of reference, the state government was not in a position to fix a time limit for submission of the report. “The commission is independent and, therefore, it is not within the purview of the state government,” the affidavit states.
The government also doubted the political motive behind the petition. “The anxiety on part of the petitioner appears to be more of a political nature, which does not appear to be bonafide,” the affidavit states, adding that if the petitioner was so concerned with the delay, he should have aired his grievances at the appropriate forum much earlier.
