Suspended IAS officer Pradeep Sharma on Saturday alleged that he was targeted by the Narendra Modi-led Government for having knowledge of Modi’s alleged close relationship with a woman architect, whose phone was illegally tapped by the State Government and police.
Making this bold allegation on affidavit before the Supreme Court, Sharma demanded the court to consider his request for an independent CBI probe into the circumstances that led to the filing of a criminal case against him in 2008. He also sought explanation from the State Government for illegally tapping his phone as that of the woman.
The Gujarat Government has a tough task to explain the snooping controversy as Sharma annexed the entire record of transcript containing conversations between the then State Home Minister Amit Shah with then ATS Superintendent of Police Gl Singhal, where orders were made to specifically put Sharma and the woman in question on 24x7 surveillance.
Sharma claimed he had introduced the architect to Modi in 2004. He was District Magistrate of Kutch during 2003-06, when he commissioned the beautification of a Hill Garden in Bhuj following the 2001 earthquake. The said woman was the landscape architect for the project. Modi was in constant touch with her. Sharma said, “Applicant herein believes that respondent 3 (Modi) and the said woman architect remained in touch for next several years.”
It was this proximity Sharma claimed became a factor for the State to launch frivolous cases against him leading to his suspension. “These transcripts now present an ex-post facto confirmation of the apprehension of the applicant (Sharma) and as averred in the instant petition, that one of the reasons for victimising him was the applicant’s knowledge of the relationship of the respondent 3 (Modi) with the said woman architect.”
Calling the surveillance as “extremely intrusive” and “hostile”, Sharma challenged the action to be illegal as Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, permits phone tapping only in “public emergency” or in the “interest of public safety.” In none of the recorded conversations was there any reference to the case lodged against Sharma. Further, he also questioned the involvement of State IB, Crime Branch and the ATS wings to be involved in the illegal interception, who had no role in the investigation of the criminal case.
Commenting on the architect’s father’s explanation that he requested the State to put his daughter on surveillance, Sharma said it was an afterthought as the woman was an independent professional and a mature woman of 32 years who would not require such uncalled for and intrusive surveillance. He demanded the State to be put to strict proof on the need to illegally tap her phone.