The IAS officer, who had dragged Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi into the “snoopgate” involving reported surveillance of a woman architect involved in the snooping controversy, on Friday leveled serious charges against the State Government for accusing him of being engaged in illegal money transactions and carrying out obscene conversations with several women.
Denying the allegations, the officer in question Pradeep Sharma filed a counter to the State’s affidavit in the Supreme Court to suggest that the allegations were an “afterthought” and a “systematic character assassination” planned by the state after a sting operation conducted by two websites exposed how former Gujarat Minister Amit Shah used the state police machinery to snoop on Sharma and a lady architect, allegedly associated with Modi.
Referring to the claim by the state that the lady architect’s phone was put on surveillance following her father’s request apprehending her security, Sharma said, “State of Gujarat has set an unprecedented example which would be difficult to find in India whereby on the oral request by a father of an adult daughter, a lady aged 30 years, the Chief Minister of state employs the entire state machinery from the Anti-Terrorist Squad, CID Crime and the state police to conduct a full blown intrusive surveillance on the lady in question.” The petitioner also asked if there was evidence to show such practice being followed in regard to other complaints by fathers or women apprehending their security.
Defending his charge about Modi’s alleged closeness with the woman in question, Sharma said that he was personally informed about it by the lady herself. While the state put his two telephone numbers on surveillance based on intelligence inputs, details of which Sharma sought from the state, he pointed out that the transcripts produced by state in sealed cover showed his conversations with other women except the lady in question, with whom he had regular interaction on phone.
Sharma questioned if such “private conversation” was subject to the intelligence input received by the state and if not, under what authority the state government retained on record purely private conversation, which was a violation of Telegraph Act and Rules under it.
To strengthen his demand to transfer the five FIRs lodged against him by the state to CBI for an independent probe, the petitioner argued that if at all, he was found to indulge in illegal money transactions and amass benami properties as claimed by state, “not a single FIR has been registered” against him till date.
On the “pornographic” conversations that Sharma was alleged to have with several women associates and relatives, the affidavit questioned whether any complaint was received from any persons with whom the petitioner had these conversations.