FIR Against Teesta Setalvad Draws From The SC Judgment

A day after the Supreme Court upheld the clean chit given to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots case, the Gujarat anti-terror squad ATS arrested Mumbai-based activist Teesta Setalvad on Saturday. The arrest also came hours after Union Minister Amit Shah’s said in an interview that an NGO run by Setalvad had given the police unsubstantiated information regarding the riots in Gujarat. “The NGO that was being run by her,” Shah said, “had given baseless information about the riots to the police.”  

Also Read | Major SITs Constituted In The Last Decade And Their Outcomes
  
The FIR against Setalvad and two others --- former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and former DGP RB Sreekumar --- followed the apex court’s observation that some people kept “the pot boiling” of the case “for ulterior design” and “all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with the law."
  
What’s significant is that the FIR draws heavily from the apex court’s 452-page judgement that dismissed the plea by Zakia Jafri, the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed along with dozens of others in Gulberg Society of Ahmedabad during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Zakia Jafri’s plea, in which the activist Teesta Setalvad was a co-petitioner, had challenged the Supreme Court-appointed SIT’s clean chit to Modi, alleging that the investigation had overlooked evidence.

Also Read | Why Teesta Setalvad's Great-grandfather Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad Is In News?   

Several SIT submissions regarding Sreekumar, Bhatt and Setalvad, which were placed before the Supreme Court are cited almost verbatim in the FIR. The FIR cites verbatim from the annexure in the Supreme Court verdict that Bhatt, the then DIG, had “sent a letter dated 30.12.2011 to the Secretary, Hon'ble Justice Nanavati & Justice Mehta Commission of Inquiry”.   

Similarly, the SIT's findings of the emails exchanged by Bhatt, the Gujarat police and certain individuals co-accused, which found a mention in the SC's ruling, are also cited in the FIR. The judgement summarises the SIT findings with these words: “From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs and some political leaders were trying to use Hon'ble Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores.” 

Also Read | Justice For Ehsan Jafri: A Timeline
   
However, the FIR says that the SIT’s scrutiny of the emails “establishes that certain vested interests individuals and organisations including Sanjiv Bhat, different NGOs, some political leaders and organisations were hatching a criminal conspiracy to use various forums such as the Honourable Supreme Court, SIT for settling their scores and achieve an unlawful object of implicating innocent individuals in offences punishable with life.”   
  
What is underlined as a possibility in the SC judgment becomes a conclusive statement in the FIR.  

Also Read | SC Clean Chit To PM Modi In 2002 Gujarat Riots A Setback To The ‘Hate India’ Industry

The FIR also quotes a passage nearly identically from the judgement where Zakia Jafri admits to having known both Setalvad and Sreekumar. Noting that since Zakia had admitted in her cross-examination that she had no occasion to read the copy of the statement she gave before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on August 22, 2003,  the FIR says: “This indicates that she was tutored by Teesta Setalvad.”   

 

   
Speaking to Outlook, Setalvad’s lawyer Vijay Hiremath said that the SC judgement does not “anywhere openly or unambiguously mention that Teesta Setalvad has fabricated the evidence."
   
“Moreover,” says Hiremath, “ when the apex court said that all the involved need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law, Gujarat government’s response should have been that there is already an enquiry going on and that they are pursuing it.”   
   
“There is an enquiry of 2011 which is already going on, and Teesta has participated in it, and has also received protection in terms of anticipatory bail,” the lawyer says, adding “the FIR filed on June 25 is an illegal FIR, they have done it only to circumvent the 2011 enquiry and to arrest Setalvad.”   
   
Teesta’s detention drew a sharp reaction from several individuals and organisations. In a series of Tweets, Amnesty India slammed her detention and said that it sends a “chilling message” to civil society.   

Mary Lawlor, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders also expressed her deep concern. “Teesta is a strong voice against hatred and discrimination. Defending human rights is not a crime. I call for her release and an end to persecution by #Indian state,” Lawlor tweeted.   

Several protests were held in Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi and Bengaluru opposing her arrest on Monday.