Retired Supreme Court judge M B Shah, who has been appointed by the Modi government to head the commission to probe the charges of corruption against it is a familiar name in Gujarat.
Justice Shah heads the monitoring authority of the Special Task Force (STF) appointed by the state government to probe cases of fake encounters. This authority, incidentally, was appointed by the Modi government.
In a bid to prevent fake encounters and avoid human rights violations, the state government had formed the STF to investigate the deaths in police encounters. The government had set up the STF through a notification. The STF was given autonomy to investigate the encounters.
The state government had also formed a monitoring authority headed by Justice M B Shah. The STF and the authority were formed vide government notification of September 16, 2010.
The rationale for having a monitoring authority was to ensure investigation by the STF was independent and moved in the right direction.
However, senior advocate Mukul Sinha had challenged the formation of the STF on the grounds that encounters staged by Gujarat cops could be investigated by Gujarat cops themselves.
The STF was challenged during the Sadiq Jamal case in which the petitioners sought CBI investigation instead of the STF probe.
Sinha challenged not only the constitution of the task force in which police officials from the state would probe the alleged fake encounter carried out by Ahmedabad crime branch officials but also termed the monitoring authority headed by Justice Shah as a non-statutory body. The High Court had rejected the plea of the state government of constituting the STF to probe Jamal’s encounter.
Later, High Court judge M R Shah had handed over the Jamal encounter case to the CBI on April 16, 2011.
Sinha on Thursday dubbed the constitution of the M B Shah Commission as an immoral step by the state government.
‘ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL’
Dr Mukul Sinha claims it is “absolutely immoral” to allow a commission constituted by the state government to probe charges of corruption against the state government.
“The question of corruption cannot be a subject matter of a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
“The corruption charges are against the state government and it is the prerogative of the state government to accept or reject the report of the commission. If the state government finds the findings to its advantage it will accept the same and if it finds that it does not suit its cause it will reject the report. Such corruption charges should be probed under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” Dr Sinha said.
Source: Ahmedabad Mirror
