The court was hearing a plea filed by Mumbai-based Dr Pankaj Phadnis, who has sought reopening of investigation on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history.
The Supreme Court on Friday posed searching questions to a petitioner, who is seeking re- investigation in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and asked him to satisfy it on aspects of delay and his locus to raise this issue.
The apex court made it clear that it would go only by law and not the stature of the person involved in the case.
A bench comprising Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao told the petitioner not to get carried away by the greatness of the person involved as the issue was whether there was any evidence available in the matter.
“You (petitioner) have to answer a couple of very important points. One of them is delay. The other is locus. The third is the fact that because of the delay, every piece of evidence pertaining to the incident is lost,” the bench said adding that almost all witnesses related to the case have passed away.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Mumbai-based Dr Pankaj Phadnis , a researcher and a trustee of Abhinav Bharat, who has sought reopening of investigation on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history.
Meanwhile, Mr. Phadnis requested for time to respond to the report filed by senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.
Mr. Sharan, in his report filed in the court, has said that there was no need to re-investigate Mahatma’s assassination case as the conspiracy behind the murder and identity of assailant Nathuram Vinayak Godse who had fired the bullets have already been duly established.
The bench granted four weeks time to the petitioner to file his response to the report of the amicus.
During the hearing the bench told the petitioner that the issue was whether any admissible evidence was available at present. “Don’t get carried away with the greatness of the person involved. This is about whether there is any evidence available or not,” the bench observed adding, “Court will act according to the law and rule and not as per stature of person involved.”