 "Snooping case: Gujarat HC quashes probe panel")
The high court here on Friday scrapped the two-member commission of inquiry constituted by the Gujarat government to probe the alleged snooping on a female architect by the state police. The surveillance, in 2009, was said to be at the behest of former minister of state for home, Amit Shah, who is now national president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The court acted upon a petition filed by the woman's father.
The matter had become a major political controversy. In November last year, the state government (when Narendra Modi, now the nation's prime minster, was chief minister) had constituted the two-member commission in the “larger public interest” to “gather, assimilate and establish the truth” behind the alleged snooping. The panel consisted of former HC judge Sugna Bhatt and former additional chief secretary K C Kapoor. It was asked to give a report in three months and was given an extension after this time limit expired.
The decision of the state government had come after two investigative news portals had alleged a little earlier that Shah had ordered illegal surveillance of a woman at the behest of one 'Saheb'. They had also released taped conversations between Shah and then suspended IPS officer G L Singhal to support their charge. Shah and Singhal are accused in different cases of fake police encounters.
More From This Section
On Friday, judge Paresh Upadhyay on a petition filed by the woman's father, observed that constituting a commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act to investigated alleged snooping of a woman cannot be termed as public interest, said the petitioner's lawyer, A Y Kogje. He said the court further accepted the contention of the father that constitution of the commission would infringe upon his and his daughter’s right to privacy.
The two-member commission was asked to inquire whether the circumstance leading to the release of the audio tapes after a long gap of four years reveal any conspiracy. It was supposed to probe the "authenticity and veracity of the tapes, whether the incidents as alleged by the web portals actually took place, the facts, circumstances, reasons and causes that led to alleged security/surveillance, if any, and whether there was any breach with any laid down mandatory legal provisions or processes.