The man who has questioned the role of Nathuram Godse in the killing of Mahatma Gandhi created a sensation in the Supreme Court on Monday by producing a sealed cover containing documents which he claimed could not be disclosed for fear of being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.
The documents were produced by the petitioner appearing in person Pankaj Phadnis, who claimed the documents were sourced from the library of Congress in United States of America. Hinting at a larger conspiracy behind the killing of Mahatma, Phadnis sought permission from Court to file the document in sealed cover.
The Bench of Justices SA Bobde and lN Rao refused to accept the request and asked Phadnis to disclose in an application the entire information that he proposed to file and the reason why the same was not disclosed till date. The court had granted time to Phadnis to rebut the contents of a report prepared by amicus curiae senior advocate Amarendra Sharan who poured through the entire trial court records and evidence to dismiss the petitioner's claim of a larger conspiracy.
Phadnis informed the court that the photographs obtained on the date of incident showed that three bullets were fired on the Father of the Nation and the third bullet theory held the key to the larger conspiracy and a possible attacker other than Godse who was hanged for the murder. He further claimed that a US-based attorney informed him that there is technology available to forensically examine a photograph in order to ascertain the truth in his claim.
But the Bench replied, "We are aware of such technology but we have to first see whether it is legally permissible. You have to first satisfy us that there is material."
Phadnis said the documents in his custody have been banned by the Government of India. He had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court to lift the ban but the HC rejected his petition. But the bench was firm that it will not entertain any sealed cover from the petitioner and the same will have to be mentioned in an application after serving a copy of the same to the amicus curiae. The next hearing in the case will be on March 6.