[2002 Gujarat Riots] SC Judges Differ On Granting Interim Protection To Activist Teesta Setalvad, Matter To Be Placed Before Larger Bench
In a special sitting held today evening, the Supreme Court's Judges Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice PK Mishra differed on granting interim protection to Activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with the Gujarat Police FIR lodged against in connection with the 2002 Gujarat Riots case, and hence, the matter will now be placed before a larger bench."There is a disagreement between us on the...
In a special sitting held today evening, the Supreme Court's Judges Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice PK Mishra differed on granting interim protection to Activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with the Gujarat Police FIR lodged against in connection with the 2002 Gujarat Riots case, and hence, the matter will now be placed before a larger bench.
"There is a disagreement between us on the question of grant of interim protection to her. So we request the Chief Justice to assign this matter to a larger bench," the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Prashant Kumar Mishra said as it could not arrive at a unanimous decision, virtually denying any interim relief to Teesta.
The bench was essentially dealing with an SLP filed by Setalvad challenging Gujarat High Court's order, passed earlier today, rejecting her regular bail plea in connection with an FIR by state police accusing her of fabricating documents to implicate high govt functionaries in relation to 2002 Gujarat riots. The High Court also directed her to surrender immediately.
When the matter came for a special hearing, Justice Oka, at the outset, clarified that the bench is not going into the merits right now, however, he added that since the order was pronounced on Saturday, the High Court could have granted some breathing time to Setalvad to surrender.
In response to this, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought to explain why HC did not grant time to surrender, Justice Oka orally observed thus:
"Matter may be listed on Tuesday, that's what we are saying. Some time to surrender. Let us be very fair, some time should be granted for a higher court to examine...She was on interim bail since September last year. Heavens will not fall (if she is given sometime to surrender)...We are telling you something very reasonable...We have not decided anything. But we are also handicapped, we received paper book now."
However, since SG Mehta insisted on opposing the interim protection to Setalvad in the matter, the Bench allowed him to argue for 5 minutes and thereafter, SG Mehta submitted thus:
"Please allow me to persuade the court...Please see how the entire State was maligned, witnesses tutored...She has taken the entire institution for a ride. Question of the majesty of the institution...The Supreme Court itself found some material against her and so the FIR was lodged against her, however, if your lordships think there is no material in the case, you can pass an order. For all that she has done...She may go to jail. If Your Lordships find that she has been wrongly taken into custody, she can always be released. That is the rule of law."
However, after holding a brief discussion with Justice Mishra, Justice Oka informed the parties before it that since there was a disagreement on the point of granting interim relief to Teesta, therefore, an order was being passed for placing the matter before the CJI DY Chandrachud immediately for the constitution of a larger bench in the matter.
Senior Advocate CU Singh and AOR Aparna Bhatt appeared for Teesta. SG Tushar Mehta and AOR Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the State of Gujarat.
Case against Setalvad
Setalvad is facing an FIR on the allegations of fabricating evidence and instituting false proceedings in relation to the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. The FIR against her was registered by the state police last year, a day after Setalvad's plea alleging a larger conspiracy in Gujarat Riots was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
For context, it may be noted that in her plea before the Top Court (which was dismissed in June 2022), Setalvad along with Zakia Ehsan Jafri had challenged the closure report filed by SIT discarding the allegations of a larger conspiracy by high state functionaries including the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 others in the Gujarat riots of 2002 that ensued the Godhra train massacre.
in June 2022, the Apex Court had observed that the petition was filed with "ulterior motives" to "keep the pot boiling". The Court further said that action should be taken against those who abused the process of law.
In its order, the SC observed that a "coalesced effort" of disgruntled officials from Gujarat and others was to make false sensational revelations, which the Gujarat SIT "exposed."
"Intriguingly, the present proceedings have been pursued for last 16 years… to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design. As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law."
Read more about the Supreme Court's order here: Supreme Court Dismisses Zakia Jafri's Plea Against SIT Clean Chit To Narendra Modi In 2002 Gujarat Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Pursuant to these observations, the FIR in question was registered against retired state DGP R B Sreekumar, Setalvad, and former IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt charging them with criminal conspiracy, forgery, and other Sections of the IPC. The FIR in question quoted extensively from the Supreme Court's order.
On June 25 itself, the Gujarat Police's Anti-Terrorism Squad took activist Teesta Setalvad into custody from her residence in Mumbai. Her bail plea was rejected by a lower court in Ahmedabad on July 30, challenging which, she had moved the Gujarat high court in July 2022.
Thereafter, she moved to the Supreme Court seeking bail in the case. The Supreme Court finally granted her interim bail on September 2 noting that she had been in custody for 2 months and the investigative machinery had the advantage of custodial interrogation for a period of 7 days.
Earlier on November 15, Justice Samir J. Dave of the Gujarat High Court recused from hearing the matter.