SC posts Pradeep Sharma’s case for final hearing on December 6, 2013
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted for final hearing on December 6 a petition filed by Gujarat IAS officer, Pradeep N. Sharma, seeking a CBI probe into the five cases pending against him and transfer of the trial outside Gujarat.
The court had earlier issued notice to the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the Gujarat government and the CBI on Mr. Sharma’s petition.
During the resumed hearing on Tuesday before a Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, petitioner’s counsel Prashant Bhushan referred to the recent “snooping of telephone incident posted in a website” and said there had been some serious developments and the matter should be decided expeditiously.
Additional Advocate General for Gujarat Tushar Mehta said since pleadings had been completed the matter could be listed for final disposal. Accordingly the bench listed the petition for final hearing on December 6.
Later Mr. Bhushan told reporters that he would be filing an application seeking a CBI probe relating to the snooping incident as the same officer was also affected by the snooping charge.
The petitioner submitted that he was being targeted from January 2010 and five cases had been registered against him as he happened to be the younger brother of Kuldip Sharma, senior most IPS officer in Gujarat State, who functioned as the Additional General of Police.
He pointed out that Mr. Kuldip Sharma was targeted by the State government as he did not agree to the illegal instructions of the Chief Minister, Mr. Modi and the then MOS (Home), Amit Shah. The Chief Minister downgraded the ACRs with the malafide intention of denying him promotion to the next higher rank as at least three outstanding ACRs are required out of last 10 years to qualify for the next promotion.
All the cases had been registered at the behest of the Chief Minister to falsely implicate and persecute him and to deprive him of his personal life and liberty. These cases were being registered and being investigated by the State machinery at the behest of the Chief Minister who had a personal agenda to ensure that he remained incarcerated, albeit unjustly, and would never be able to work in his professional capacity or lead a peaceful life, pleaded Mr. Bhushan.
He said there was a misplaced apprehension in the minds of Mr. Modi that the petitioner was the recipient of the alleged existence of a VCD involving the Chief Minister. He was not in any manner connected with its alleged existence, nevertheless, the vindictive nature as well as the pattern of the Chief Minister’s actions in foisting false cases against him was apparently consistent with a strong apprehension on part of the Chief Minister that the Petitioner might be in the know or in possession of such information. Hence he sought a direction that the cases be transferred to the CBI.