The Gujarat High Court Monday directed the state government to provide inspection of all intelligence documents which were available and sought by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt to file an affidavit before the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. A division Bench of HC,comprising Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala,passed an order in this regard while acting on an application moved by the state government that sought to clarify an HC order passed in October 2012,based on Advocate General Kamal Trivedis statement related to the records,which was later found contrary to facts.
Based on the Advocate Generals statement,the HC Bench had disposed of a PIL,jointly moved by Bhatt and civil rights organisation Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
In the PIL,the petitioners had sought that the state government be directed to provide certain intelligence documents to Bhatt so that he could file an affidavit before the Nanavati-Mehta Commission probing the 2002 Godhra carnage and the subsequent communal riots. The PIL was moved after the state government did not provide Bhatt access to those records. The then government counsel told the media that some of the documents sought by Bhatt were destroyed.
The Advocate General,at the relevant time,told the court that the documents sought by Bhatt were not destroyed,they were available and provided to the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. However,shortly after that,the state government made it clear before the Commission that 9 out of the 47 documents sought by Bhatt had been destroyed in routine course. A senior IPS officer filed an affidavit in this regard before the Commission. The state government had produced only 15 out of the 47 documents sought by Bhatt. While nine of them had been claimed to be destroyed,many of them were claimed to be either being traced or not maintained or marked as secret.
Subsequently,the state government moved the instant application,seeking to clarify the statement of the Advocate General,contending that it was a bona fide mistake committed due to some misunderstanding in communication. The application was vehemently opposed by Bhatt and PUCL.