In a clear case of conflict of interest, Maulik Nanavati, the son of retired Justice G.T. Nanavati, who heads the Nanavati Mehta Inquiry Commission probing the 2002 Gujarat riots, has appeared for the Gujarat government in the high court and the Supreme Court as an empanelled lawyer of the state.

Justice G.T. Nanavati Justice G.T. Nanavati

The Gujarat government had appointed Justice Nanavati on May 21, 2002 as the chairman of the inquiry commission to probe the Sabarmati Express carnage at Godhra and the subsequent riots in Gujarat. Maulik's appointment as additional public prosecutor (APP) followed three years later, in 2005.

Maulik represents the state in the Central Administrative Tribunal against the senior IPS officer Kuldeep Sharma, who was targeted by the Narendra Modi government for not following instructions in sensitive matters like the Sohrabuddin fake encounter.

It is learnt that Maulik spends two days every month representing the state government in the Supreme Court. For each appearance he is paid a hefty fee.

Maulik's brother, Dhaval, had appeared for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in a few cases before the Gujarat high court.

Narendra Modi Narendra Modi

Senior high court lawyer Anand Yagnik said this was a classic case of conflict of interest.

"How can the government of Gujarat appoint Maulik as its representative when his father is supposed to give a report in favour or against the state government depending on the evidence emerging out of the riot probe?" he asked.

Yagnik added that Dhaval, the other son of Justice Nanavati, was earlier empanelled as a Central government lawyer when Justice Nanavati was probing the anti-Sikh riots of 1984.

Justice Nanavati refused to comment on the conflict of interest. "No comments," he said.

Maulik Nanavati rubbished the allegations. "These allegations are baseless and have been floating for quite some time. I have been representing the government of Gujarat for a while now," Maulik said.

He explained that APPs are appointed by the state government based on the recommendations of the high court.

But, senior high court lawyers said APPs are appointed by the state government. "The proposal for these appointments comes from the advocate-general to the state government's legal department, which is subsequently ratified," said a senior advocate who did not want to be named.

What has raised eyebrows in legal circles here is the timing of Maulik's appointment as APP - it comes close on the heels of Justice Nanavati's appointment as chairman of the inquiry commission.

"Maulik was earlier practising in Delhi and post 2002, he started representing the state in the apex court," said a senior lawyer. "However, he moved to Ahmedabad and started practising around 2005. That was when he was appointed as an APP," he said.

Gujarat law minister Dilip Sanghani did not see a conflict of interest in Maulik's appointment as APP. "The panel includes several lawyers and it is up to the departments to hand over a case to a particular lawyer. Our job is only to make the panel," Sanghani said.

Asked if Maulik's inclusion in the panel itself was a conflict of interest, Sanghani avoided a direct answer. The minister said Maulik had been on the panel before he took over as the law minister. Sanghani was appointed law minister after the 2007 Gujarat assembly elections.

The Gujarat government had appointed Justice K.G. Shah on March 6, 2002 to the commission of inquiry to probe the train burning incident. Subsequently, the commission was expanded to comprise two members. Justice Nanavati was appointed on May 21, 2002 while Justice Akshay Mehta was appointed after Justice Shah's death in 2008.

The Nanavati-Mehta Commission has so far submitted only the first part of its report, which was on the burning of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra.

While the initial terms of reference of the probe commission was to look into the burning of the Sabarmati Express, the government expanded the scope of inquiry on June 3, 2002 to include the incidents of violence that rocked Gujarat till March 30, 2002.

Later in 2004, after the fall of the NDA government at the Centre, the commission's terms of reference were broadened once again on July 20, 2004. These terms of reference included the role and conduct of the then chief minister and/or any other Gujarat minister and police officers in the riots. The scope of inquiry also included the incidents of violence that had taken place till May 31, 2002.

Incidentally, despite several representations from the victims, the commission has so far not called chief minister Narendra Modi to depose before it.

The commission came under fire from the legal fraternity after the special court's verdict in February this year.

Eminent lawyer Mukul Sinha had described the Nanavati Commission as a "political eyewash" after the verdict adding: "What is more interesting is that while the special court and Justice Nanavati had the same set of confessions and documents, their conclusions were so different?"