Teesta Setalvad bail - Why Supreme Court is so concerned unprecedently

March 24, 2015 15:03
Teesta Setalvad bail - Why Supreme Court is so concerned unprecedently

The case against Teesta Setalvad, based on a complaint filed by residents of Gulbarg Society on allegations that she and her husband Javed Anand, trustees of Citizens for Justice and Peace and Sabrang Trust, for forgery and criminal breach of trust of the 2002 riot victims has become an exceptional case for the Supreme Court. The complaint alleged that funds collected by the two trusts for Gulbarg Society victims as per certain promises (construction of a museum and reconstruction of their homes) were instead used for personal expenses of the two.

The Gujarat High Court felt custodial interrogation was necessary because, among other reasons, Teesta and Anand never remained present before any investigating agency and have, in the High Court’s words, "employed every means to avoid the due process of law". The judgment cites "stock replies" given by the two, either feigned loss of memory, or had asked the investigating authorities to give questions in writing. On a couple of questions relating to the production of vouchers, IT returns and other documents, they replied that it is "neither necessary nor desirable" to respond and this information was being sought only to "harass and defame us".

Unprecedented in history, within hours of the Gujarat High Court judgment (12 February), Teesta's counsels, before the Supreme Court got it to stay her arrest until the next day by mentioning the matter before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India citing the emergence of an "extraordinary situation". A regular bench heard the matter the very next day giving time to Teesta's counsel Kapil Sibal to file additional documents and staying the arrest for a week. However, the bench reportedly made oral observations that the allegations against the two are "grave" and made it clear the Supreme Court would not let them make it a "political issue".

On19th February, news hit the stands that the bench that heard the matter on 13th  February, which discouraged Teesta's counsel from making it a political issue, was replaced by a new bench headed by the CJI. The court registry revealed that none of the judges on the earlier bench had recused themselves.

In what should have been a simple case of whether or not to grant anticipatory bail to the two to avoid arrest by the Gujarat Police, the two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court has instead referred the matter to a larger bench. What is the motive behind it? Whether any ordinary citizen will be able to get these privileges even when undoubtedly he / she is implicated in a false case? Common man cannot demand for justice, instead if he gets he must be the luckiest. There should be a debate on this extra ordinary privilege meted out to Teesta and her husband. What should the common man do?

By Premji

If you enjoyed this Post, Sign up for Newsletter

(And get daily dose of political, entertainment news straight to your inbox)

Rate This Article
(0 votes)