"It is a clear case of victimisation. I am being victimised for being bold enough to say I was present in the meeting of February 27, 2002 and heard some words uttered by the then Chief Minister," his counsel and senior advocate Indira Jaising submitted before a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Arun Mishra.
However, she said it is also a fact that his claim of being present in the meeting was denied by the then Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad, the DIG and one of the Bhatt's subordinates, who allegedly had accompanied him in his vehicle to the Chief Minister's office and later accused him of coercing him to sign a false affidavit.
The senior advocate said only Bhatt's driver had stood by his statement that they had gone for the meeting. She said the Gujarat government was critical of Bhatt raising the claim of his presence in the meeting as late as 2011.
Further, she said that other officers testified while he was deliberately not summoned by the Justice G T Nanavati Commission set by the state government to probe riots cases.
However, the use of word "deliberate" evoked sharp reaction from the bench, which said the Justice Nanavati was a judge of the apex court and it was for him to think whom to summon before the commission.

Jaising corrected herself and said "in his wisdom he did not summon him (Bhatt)". The bench commented "this is the correct expression."
However, she said after Bhatt filed an affidavit in the apex court, he received a summon from the Nanavati Commission for his deposition.

Latest News from India News Desk