[The article at sl. no. I below quite lucidly explains the legal dimensions of the case.]
I/. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2964273/Don-t-victimise-activists-stand-tyranny.html Don't victimise activists - they stand between us and tyranny By Rajeev Dhavan Published: 00:07 GMT, 23 February 2015 | Updated: 00:07 GMT, 23 February 2015 Coming down from Sikkim, you will see the River Teesta wind its way down resplendent with natural energy gurgling down to Siliguri, where it evens out. I am told Teesta Setalvad was named after the river -- perhaps mystically drawing energy from it. Amongst the secular forces which came together to speak for the victims of the Gujarat holocaust of 2002 and combat communalism were Teesta Setalvad and the trusts: Sabrang and Citizens for Justice and Peace. The BJP rulers of Gujarat have never taken too kindly to this intervention, and attacked them using the strategy of criminal intimidation. These kinds of counter-interventions by governments and corporates are called SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), a term coined and popularised by two professors from Denver. Examples abound, including those of in India against Hussain, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Medha Patkar, Narmada Andolan, and others. In India, there is great use of litigation to intimidate the public voice through civil and criminal actions. The Gujarat government excels in this. Arguments in case During argument in the Supreme Court in Teesta's case, State counsel Mahesh Jethmalani all but admitted Gujarat's dubious communal antecedents for the past, with Kapil Sibal (Teesta's lawyer) taking this as an admission.The case against Teesta is at the preliminary stage of granting anticipatory bail for breach of trust, cheating, forgery and an income tax offence. Before the Supreme Court, Jethmalani junior dropped pressing the forgery and tax offences (hopefully buried forever), and proceeded to rest his case on breach of trust and cheating. He asserted only two grounds for denying bail to Teesta, namely "rank non-cooperation" and "tampering with witnesses", disclaiming it as a case of 'malafide prosecution'. Anticipatory bail was invented by the new Indian Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, breaking with its imperial predecessors on the recommendation of the Law Commissions: 41st Report (1969) whose reasons for recommending anticipatory bail was: "The necessity of granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases in getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency shows signs of steady increase." This is even more true now the usual reasons for granting bail are (i) no risk of absconding (ii) cooperating with the investigation (iii) no need for custodial interrogation in the facts of the case. It is necessary to drill into the heads of the police, oppressive governments and officials and the judiciary, Krishna Iyer's splendid judicial aphorism: "Bail not Jail". In 1976, the Supreme Court in Balchand (1976) judicated that anticipatory bail cannot be excluded even in arrests under the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules. In Gurbaksh (1980) the Constitution Bench refused to accept that anticipatory bail cannot be granted for blatant corruption or economic offences, adding that a "special case" does not have to be made out for anticipatory bail. New remedy The fact that it is a new 'extraordinary' remedy does not mean that it has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases. Equally, in Siddharam (2011), the Court clarified that anticipatory bail was not only for a limited period. This puts this in focus Teesta's case. One of the prime charges was that Teesta and others had promised a Gulbarg memorial on land to be bought from victims who didn't want to live there any more. The plan failed due to lack of funds for the memorial. Carefully looked at, leave alone a case of breach of trust, even a case of breach of contract is not made out. Those who gave money for the memorial clearly indicated it could be used for other purposes. Who was cheated? No case was made out. This was not a case of quashing the FIR, but for anticipatory bail. The only argument available to Gujarat Police was Teesta was not cooperating with them in the investigation. A mere look at the record shows that some 11,000-odd pages of record were given to the Gujarat High Court and a disc to the police. Audited accounts were also given. Full cooperation was extended. The Gujarat government harped on the trust's beneficiaries not getting their due. Such mighty ignorance of the law of trusts is unforgiveable. The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 deals with private trusts involving beneficiaries. Public Trusts The Public Trusts have no beneficiaries in that sense, just charitable purposes. The police and denying high court Judge Pardiwala also got the facts on contributions to the trust wrong. Trustees contributed 71%. Curiously they were not aggrieved. Was the 'complainant' collaborating? The Law Commission presciently saw the misuse of prosecutions opposing bail at the instance of political rivals. What is strange is the Gujarat High Court's Justice Pardiwala who denied bail, launched into a harangue on activists and NGO's in general and targeted Teesta's activities as a one person show which trustees who intervened in the Supreme Court denied. Justice Pardiwala's outrage was clearly anti-NGO and pro-government, adding to the misuse of power. One other footnote: Chief Justice H.L. Dattu assigned the matter to a Mukhopadhaya-Ramana bench and, then, to the Mishra-Goel bench' which granted Teesta bail. Why? There was some public outrage that both Mukhopadhaya's and Ramana's children's weddings were attended by Modi. Was Modi a personal friend? Or were they being nice to Modi? Don't victimise activists. They are the fifth pillar of democracy. (The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer) II/. http://hillele.org/2015/02/18/arnab-goswami-lekhi-jethmalani-a-bundle-of-lies-rukmini-sen/ Hille Le News, Views, Videos not seen on TV Arnab Goswami, Lekhi, Jethmalani & a bundle of Lies - Rukmini Sen The Feminist February 18, 2015 Dear Arnab Goswami, Three Quick points- 1) Zakia Jafri has not taken her case/statement back from any court. 2) No court has said Teesta Setalvad is guilty of Perjury. 3) In Best Bakery case Zahira Sheikh was sentenced by the Indian Supreme Court to one year in prison for perjury. Teesta was proven innocent. It is in the context of the You Tube link attached with this letter that I want to raise a few questions- Every time I go to You Tube to listen to arguments for and against Teesta Setalvad I come across two violent clips. One of Meenakshi Lekhi's and the other one is that of Jethmalani's. Both calling Teesta Setalvad Queen of perjury. Both Lekhi and Jethmalani divert the debate on PM Modi to Setalvad and she walks out of the frame because you refuse to intervene. Then I read the comments below the visual clips. Most of the comments boisterously say Teesta is a liar and that is why she walked out. Let me correct the fanatic enthusiasts there and also you with some facts and just FACTS. As Lekhi and Jethmalani accuse Setalvad of the same crime I am choosing one clip ie Meenakshi Lekhi's. Arnab Goswami, Lekhi, Jethmalani & a bundle of Lies - Rukmini Sen The Feminist February 18, 2015 Comments: 2 Dear Arnab Goswami, Three Quick points- 1) Zakia Jafri has not taken her case/statement back from any court. 2) No court has said Teesta Setalvad is guilty of Perjury. 3) In Best Bakery case Zahira Sheikh was sentenced by the Indian Supreme Court to one year in prison for perjury. Teesta was proven innocent. It is in the context of the You Tube link attached with this letter that I want to raise a few questions- Every time I go to You Tube to listen to arguments for and against Teesta Setalvad I come across two violent clips. One of Meenakshi Lekhi's and the other one is that of Jethmalani's. Both calling Teesta Setalvad Queen of perjury. Both Lekhi and Jethmalani divert the debate on PM Modi to Setalvad and she walks out of the frame because you refuse to intervene. Then I read the comments below the visual clips. Most of the comments boisterously say Teesta is a liar and that is why she walked out. Let me correct the fanatic enthusiasts there and also you with some facts and just FACTS. As Lekhi and Jethmalani accuse Setalvad of the same crime I am choosing one clip ie Meenakshi Lekhi's. In this clip and clip alone two points are raised and I must ask you why you chose not to intervene as an Anchor and why as a journalist didn't report facts- - Teesta Setalvad mentions in the beginning of the clip that Meenakshi Lekhi's suggestion that - Zakia Jaffri, the co-complainant in the case (Gulberg case) has withdrawn her complaint- IS FALSE. That Ms Lekhi's statement that no FIR was filed was also FALSE. Setalvad adds that Supreme Court has in fact treated Zakia Jafri's complaint as an FIR and has asked it to be either charge sheeted or a closure report to be filed. Teesta requests in all her earnestness that YOU the Editor of Times Now who has been a Field reporter for long should not let factual inaccuracies go unchallenged on your channel. Teesta then re-asserts and categorically reiterates that Mrs Zakia Jaferi has not changed her statement in any court of Law. She asks you to respond to Meenakshi Lekhi's false statements but you don't respond to that. You don't rectify anything. You don't do your bit of bringing in the facts. We suddenly see you telling Meenakshi Lekhi to respond! Why? - Were you unaware of the facts? -Did you not know that Zakia Jafri had not changed any of her statements in the courts? - Did you not know that Supreme court had taken cognizance of Zakia Jafri's complaint as an FIR? An anchor of a Prime Time show has some responsibilities. How and why did you shun your bit of hard work? Why didn't you do your basic research? Please find some Newspaper reports for your future discussions on Zakia Jafri case. BTW till this date Zakia Jafri has NOT taken her statement back. http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/zakia-jafri-accuses-sit-of-giving-her-incomplete-copy-of-gujarat-riots-report/231886 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/zakia-jafri-moves-gujarat-high-court-over-sits-clean-chit-to-modi/article5800700.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/2002-riots-case-zakia-jafri-moves-hc-against-sit- clean-chit-to-narendra-modi/ http://zeenews.india.com/news/gujarat/2002-riots-zakia-jafri-moves-gujarat-hc-against-clean-chit-to-narendra-modi_918707.html Had you done your research that day the Lekhi and Jethmalani clips wouldn't have been a tool for propaganda against Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand who are two of the most pioneering Human Rights activists of this country. Now going to the second point. Meenakshi Lekhi says "I don't go by what Teesta Setalvad has to say because she has been repeatedly committing perjury before the court" and apparently several courts have agreed to the same. At this point Teesta Setalvad says "That is another lie. No court has held me guilty of perjury. You are committing perjury on the channel everyday". Arnab Goswami, even at the point when Lekhi says Setalvad is responsible for many cases of perjury you didn't intervene with facts. You didn't even ask Lekhi which cases were she referring to. It is hard to believe that YOU didn't think that the NATION would want to know the truth of Teesta Setalvad. Is it that the one who thinks that the Nation wants to know this and that didn't know that no Court has found Teesta Setalvad responsible of perjury. In fact on the contrary Supreme Court has in past told Gujrat Government and Modi to behave. Kindly read and enlighten yourself. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/best-bakery-case-supreme-court-slams-witness-zahira-sheikh-for-flip-flops/1/193039.html -http://infochangeindia.org/human-rights/news/perjury-earns-best-bakerys-key-witness-zaheera-sheikh-jail-term.html Third Point. When Teesta Setalvad walked out of the frame Meenakshi Lekhi says she was going to cite Zahira Shaikh matter. I don't know what happened in your discussion after this YOU TUBE clip ends. However, looking at the fact that you either didn't know about the Zakia Jafri case on the day you had called a panel on a Prime Time show to discuss the same case or chose not to intervene for some other reason my two bits about Zahira Sheikh. Supreme Court had slammed Zahira Sheikh for flip flops. She was eventually sent behind bars for a year. -http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2003-08-08/news/27534974_1_gujarat-govt-gujarat-government-sc-issues-notice -http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2003-09-12/news/27555380_1_gujarat-riots-gujarat-government-raj-dharma -http://www.gujaratfiles.net/articles/administration?page=268&mini=calendar/2008/1/all -http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/19godhra.htm Mr Goswami, some of us left journalism because we were lazy and didn't have your drive. You seem energetic and happy with your job! Many of us also think that you are smart in your own way. Your shows grab eyeballs. I loved your interview with Kiran Bedi. However, having engaged with those vacuities allow me to reiterate in no uncertain terms that you were very lazy when it came to reporting for Gujrat victims, Zakia Jaferi case, Zahira Sheikh case and in restoring your guest's dignity in the same way you restore yours. The YOU TUBE clips of Lekhi and Jethmalani where Teesta Setalvad has been called the queen of Perjury when she took on Narendra Modi has made a lot of people believe that she is indeed the queen of perjury. You can't be blamed for the motives, politics and stupidities of You Tube Commentators. However, I can't help but wonder aren't you guilty of not doing your job well? -You allowed Lekhi and Jethmalani derail the debate repeatedly. Quite like you many other institutions have let the Zakia Jafri case turn into Teesta Setalvad case! Looks like many influential people in this country are not doing their job well. I wish you, your Prime Time show and our Prime Minister good luck! Satyemev Jayate! Regards, Rukmini (Rukmini Sen) III/. http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Why-I-Stand-By-Her/293486 Why I Stand By Her Support for Teesta is support for access to justice for victims of a pogrom. March 2, 2015 Indira Jaising Victims of crime are known to get so tired of legal processes that they drop out from fatigue. Often, they are bought over by the accused. This is likelier when the accused is a powerful person, with the ability to mobilise finances and wield political clout. Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri, a former Congress MP who was burnt alive in Gulberg Society during the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, was fighting a chief minister (Narendra Modi), and it was not until the Supreme Court appointed an SIT--taking the investigation of the very state she was fighting--that things started to move. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), of which Teesta Setalvad is the moving spirit, supported Zakia through this and supports her to this day. Support for Teesta is support for access to justice for victims of a pogrom. It's for the courts, of course, to decide whether a crime has been committed, but the least society can offer Zakia is the support she needs to carry the prosecution through to completion. There is no 'clean chit' yet. Appellate and constitutional justice is yet to be done. Teesta's organisation, the CJP, supports victims of communal violence. They are human rights defenders, who in turn must be protected by law. Access to justice can be denied in different ways. One is to intimidate those who support a seeker of justice. The case against Teesta smacks of a plan to deter her from assisting victims of the Gujarat 2002 riots. Thanks to CJP, 119 people--one of them a minister--have been convicted and given life terms for their part in the riots. This is a record of convictions for any communal riot in India. The financial dealings of Teesta and CJP can be probed, but the disproportionality of the legal process, the timing, and the insistence of the prosecution on custodial interrogation, smack of vendetta. Teesta is not running away from an investigation. She's only asking: "Why arrest me?" And she's asking for a fair investigation. What needs to be addressed here is the perception of bias in the trial process. What I am saying is, the disproportionate nature of the attack on her, the timing and the attempt to arrest her and her husband Javed Anand smack of vendetta and bias, an impression which can only be corrected by the courts stepping in and addressing the issue of her demand for a transfer of the investigation out of Gujarat. The issue is not whether CJP has commited financial misconduct. The issue is how fair are our pre-trial processes and how impartial our justice delivery system. In contrast to the vehemence of the Gujarat police to prosecute and arrest Teesta and Javed, one sees the failure of the CBI to appeal against the discharge of Amit Shah, the chief of the ruling BJP, in a case in which he is accused of three murders. One wonders if is this not a case of manipulation of the investigation machinery by the State? Indira Jaising is a former additional solicitor-general; E-mail your columnist: letters [AT] outlookindia [DOT] com BOX One of the ways of denying access to justice is to go after the supporters of a victim. here, Teesta. IV/. http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Chokehold-Of-The-State/293485 controversy: teesta setalvad Chokehold Of The State With unusual enthusiasm, Gujarat goes after activist-couple Teesta and Javed Prachi Pinglay-Plumber Whereof And Why Teesta Setalvad, a Padma Shri, is a rights activist fighting for victims of communal violence. She's the grand--daughter of M.C. Setalvad, India's first attorney general Her last job was at Business India, her husband Javed's at The Sunday Observer They have been running the advocacy journal Communalism Combat Their Sabrang Trust and CJP have received Rs 9,74,75,100 over 10 years Of this, the contested amount is Rs 3,85,00,896, roughly Rs 38.5 lakh p.a. *** What can explain the over-enthusiasm of the Gujarat police in investigating a case of alleged cheating involving amounts claimed to range from Rs 4 lakh to Rs 3 crore? Or the insistence, for that matter, of the Gujarat High Court that Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand, perhaps India's best-known activist couple, who run Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), be arrested and subjected to "custodial interrogation" to probe the charges? This clumsy arm--twisting seems desig-ned to pressure them into giving up the pursuit of charges of inaction and complicity against Narendra Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, in the post-Godhra riots of 2002. The unequal battle took a fresh turn this month when, minutes after the high court rejected their plea for anticipatory bail, policemen from Gujarat arrived at the couple's Mumbai residence to arrest them. The Supreme Court has since given them temporary relief. But a protracted legal battle lies ahead. For even as it declared that "personal liberty cannot be put in a ventilator", the SC reserved its order on Teesta and Javed's plea for anticipatory bail. It told Gujarat police that the couple "will not be arrested", but also ordered them "not to act smart" and cooperate with the police by producing all the documents. In fact, the court also told Mahesh Jethmalani, the lawyer representing the Gujarat government, that if the couple failed to cooperate, he could return to the court with a plea for cancellation of their bail. And just about a week ago, an SC bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay and Justice P.V. Ramanna had found the charges against Teesta and her husband "grave". The judges felt the FIR against them was serious enough to merit investigation and made it clear that they were not inclined to entertain the couple's plea for protection against possible arrest. They did, however, extend the bail for a week while adjourning the hearing till February 19. Barely 48 hours before the February 19 hearing, the Chief Justice of India directed that the plea be put up instead before Justices Dipak Misra and A.K. Goel. Newspapers reported that neither of the judges on the original bench had sought to be recused. The charges of cheating and embezzlement against the couple seemed flimsy and brazen. The complaint was filed by a few former residents of Gul-berg Society, a housing complex where 69 Muslim residents were killed during riots in 2002. They said the couple had promised to turn the complex into a memorial and museum and collected donations, but neither had the museum come up nor had they paid them any part of the donations received. Teesta and Javed say the proposal to put up a memorial was mooted around 2007, but the plan was abandoned in 2012 when donations turned out to be far short of the target. Prices of real estate in the Hindu-dominated area of Ahmedabad had gone up four times since 2002, they pointed out, and the donations received for the museum amounted to a paltry Rs 4.5 lakh, including Rs 50,000 from abroad. Realising that it was not possible to buy the flats from occupants at market rates, the couple obtained from members of its housing cooperative society their no-objection to diverting the funds for legal aid in cases of riot victims that they were fighting. "This is the seventh instance when the state has lodged an FIR against her. On all occasions SC protected her liberty"Kapil Sibal, SC advocate, ex-law minister The couple also pointed out that the state had fallen back on an antiquated law that prevented members of one community from selling their housing property to members of another community. Many original residents of Gulberg Society, Muslims largely, have moved out. And since it is surrounded by Hindu colonies, other members of the minority community were unwilling to buy the property and live there. To a question from the bench of Justices Misra and Goel, Jethmalani admitted that Setalvad had been summoned twice for questioning and that she had turned up on both occasions. But, he complained, her replies were "stock replies" and not very helpful. The bench then wondered why her custodial interrogation was necessary since the charges appeared to be merely about discrepancies (or irregularities) in accounts. Gulberg Society was where 69 people were killed, including former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri. Jafri's widow Zakia had named then chief minister Narendra Modi in her letter of complaint, and though the SIT did not find enough evidence to prosecute him, the Supreme Court's amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran felt the evidence was substantial. Setalvad's appeal against the SIT's finding is also pending. CJP has fought or continues to fight eight cases of the post-Godhra riots. These cases involved some 267 people killed in rioting. In six of the eight cases, 126 have been convicted so far and 196 acquitted. Of the two pending cases, one is that of the Gulberg society. "What concerns me is that if Gujarat police arrest Teesta and Javed, how will you ensure that they will not be threatened by those who got arrested only because of their efforts? Will they be protected from these people?" asks Tushar Gandhi, activist and great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. "One fine day there will be no one left to raise voices." Sandhya, who represents Hum Azad-iyon Ke Haq Mein, a Mumbai-based plat-form of rights groups, says that all the accounts of CJP and its Sabrang trust have been submitted all these years to the charity commissioner, the home ministry, income-tax authorities, donor agencies and two sets of auditors. "No one ever raised any objection to the accounts submitted so far," she says. Dilip D'Souza, author of the Curious Case of Binayak Sen, says there are parallels between Sen's case and that of Teesta. "In Sen's case, the cops had listed some amounts, different on different days, and showed them as misappropriation. They had even shown a government project notification he had saved on his computer as evidence for irregularity." It is not going unnoticed that officials--ministers and police officers--accused in different cases, such as the Naroda Patia massacre, the Ishrat Jehan fake encounter case and the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, have not only been getting bail, they are being reinstated in their original or even better ranks. "After Narendra Modi became prime minister, one by one, they are coming out," says filmmaker and activist Anand Pat-wardhan. He says CJP has been a thorn in the flesh of perpetrators, referring to Teesta and Javed's persistence in fighting the post-Godhra riot cases. Supporters of the couple who demonstrated in Mumbai and stood in solidarity for them have been saying that they still have faith in the judiciary and are hopeful that justice will be done. The Supreme Court has not disappointed them. 2002 Citizens for Justice & Peace set up by Teesta Setalvad and husband Javed Anand among others to ensure justice for the victims of Gujarat riots 2007 CJP proposes to set up a Museum for Resistance at Gulberg Society after purchasing the flats at market rates from the occupants/owners 2012 The plan for the museum and the memorial abandoned after donations, Rs 4.5 lakh according to the couple, fall far short of the target 2013 A few 'former' occupants lodge complaint that the couple had neither set up the memorial nor given them a share of the donations collected in their name 2014 Sessions court rejects couple's plea for anticipatory bail. An appeal filed before the high court. Police seek documents and accounts, which are supplied. 2015 After nine months, the high court rejects appeal and police arrive within minutes to arrest couple in Mumbai. Supreme Court steps in to extend bail period. By Prachi Pinglay-Plumber in Mumbai with inputs from Uttam Sengupta in Delhi V/. http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/02/21/india-stop-harassment-activists For Immediate Release India: Stop Harassment of Activists Police Target Group Seeking Justice for 2002 Gujarat Riots (New York, February 21, 2015) - Indian authorities should end politically motivated intimidation and harassment of human rights activists who have been pursuing justice for victims of the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat state, Human Rights Watch said today. While all nongovernmental organizations should fully adhere to financial regulations, police in Gujarat state appear to be acting to undermine the human rights work of the activists Teesta Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand. Setalvad is well known for her work in supporting the riot victims and for seeking criminal charges against scores of officials including Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his alleged involvement in the riots as the state's chief minister in 2002. Gujarat police accuse the activists of misusing funds donated to their nongovernmental organizations Citizens for Justice and Peace and Sabrang Trust to support the riot victims and want to detain the couple for interrogation. The activists say that the disputed fund transfers were used to reimburse them for legitimate work-related expenses. They said they will cooperate with the investigation and should not be detained. "The activists have agreed to cooperate though they believe the allegations are politically motivated, but Gujarat authorities shouldn't be using these laws to sweep away serious human rights concerns," said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Attempts to harass or discredit activists will not make the massive abuses during the 2002 Gujarat violence disappear." The Indian Supreme Court on February 19, 2015, stayed the arrest of the couple. "Why do you need activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband in custody to question them?" the court said. Setalvad and Anand had sought the intervention of the Supreme Court in anticipation of a possible arrest on the grounds that the investigation constitutes a political vendetta against them. The Gujarat police are investigating allegations that Setalvad and some other members of her organization misappropriated for personal use funds collected for building a memorial to the victims of the 2002 riots. Setalvad and Anand have provided detailed documents to the investigating authorities asserting that the plan to build the memorial was dropped because very little money had been collected while the price of land had increased significantly. The police accuse them of using the funds to pay personal credit card expenses. The activists say that they didn't have a separate credit card for business expenses, but used trust funds only to reimburse business expenses. Gujarat state officials have stalled efforts to investigate and prosecute riot cases, harassed and intimidated activists and lawyers involved, and in some instances obstructed justice, Human Rights Watch said. Following appeals by activists and victims' families, the Supreme Court ordered re-investigations, oversaw independent inquiries in some cases, or shifted trials out of Gujarat to ensure that they would be fair. Thus far, over a 120 people have been convicted for their role in the riots, including a member of the Gujarat state cabinet. In 2012 a Supreme Court-ordered investigation decided that there was not enough evidence to prove Modi's direct complicity. However, an amicus curiae - friend of the court - appointed by the court to monitor the process concluded instead that Modi's role should be investigated further on several counts. Referring to a key witness whose testimony was dismissed by the investigation team, the amicus curiae noted that "the stage for believing or disbelieving a witness arises after trial i.e. once the entire evidence is placed before the court for its consideration." In March 2014, Zakia Jafri, the widow of a murdered member of parliament, filed a petition in Gujarat High Court with the support of Setalvad's organization to appeal for the prosecution of senior officials, including Modi. In one of the most horrific attacks during the 2002 riots, Ehsan Jafri and 68 others were killed in a mob attack. Jafri said that her husband had repeatedly called senior police officials and the chief minister's office to seek protection but that the state authorities failed to respond. The petition alleges that the state authorities were complicit in the riots and destroyed key records. A Human Rights Watch 2002 report on the riots found that the authorities failed to take adequate steps to end the violence. Authorities in Gujarat had filed charges against Setalvad twice before, but the Supreme Court rejected them. In 2004, she was accused of coercing a witness into giving false evidence; in 2010, she was accused of illegally exhuming the bodies of riot victims. "Justice for India's terrible tragedies, whether the 2002 Gujarat riots or the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, won't happen so long as the authorities place roadblocks in the way," Ganguly said. For more Human Rights Watch reporting on India, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/asia/india VI/. http://frontlinedefenders.org/node/28112 Posted 2015/2/16 India - Human rights defender Teesta Setalvad at ongoing risk of detention On 13 February 2015, the Indian Supreme Court ordered a stay on the arrest of human rights defender Ms Teesta Setalvad and her spouse, Mr Javed Anand, until 19 February 2015. The human rights defender, her spouse and three other individuals are being investigated for allegedly embezzling funds intended for the construction of a memorial to the victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots. Teesta Setalvad is a journalist and founder of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Sabrang Trust. CJP was established in April 2002, in the immediate aftermath of the communal violence of the Gujarat riots, to provide legal aid to the survivors of the riots. The organisation has been instrumental in obtaining the 117 convictions against perpetrators of the violence. Sabrang Trust was established after the 1992-1993 communal violence in Mumbai, and works to promote communal harmony. Teesta Setalvad has been the victim of judicial harassment in the past, with several of the cases having been brought by the same individual. The Supreme Court postponed until 19 February 2015 the hearing of the appeal against the decision of the High Court of Gujarat on 12 February 2015 to deny the human rights defender anticipatory bail. The High Court stated that it was "in public interest" and "in the interest of justice" that Teesta Setalvad be held in custody during the investigation, as she had failed to cooperate with the police in its investigation. The human rights defender is under investigation for charges of fraud and breach of trust and criminal conspiracy under the Income Tax Act, and the hearings on the question of anticipatory bail have been ongoing since January 2014. Teesta Setalvad remains at liberty, and denies the accusations against her, stating moreover that she has fully cooperated with the police investigation. The charges were originally brought against the human rights defender in March 2013 in a complaint by a private individual. Teesta Setalvad reportedly provided the information requested by the Ahmedabad Police's Crime Branch in May 2013, and the police took no further action until it filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her and the four other individuals in January 2014. The initial complaint was made against the backdrop of hearings between April and May 2013 of a case in which Teesta Setalvad was supporting the attempt of a victim of the communal violence to bring charges against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, formerly the Gujarat Chief Minister, and 59 others (including senior officials of the Crime Branch Ahmedabad and Ahmedabad police) for their alleged involvement in the 2002 riots. The Magistrate rejected the case on 26 December 2013. Allegedly, eight days later, as the CJP prepared to appeal that decision, the FIR was filed against Teesta Setalvad and the other persons. Front Line Defenders expresses its concern at the risk of detention faced by Teesta Setalvad. Front Line defenders believes that the accusations against the human rights defender are directly linked to her peaceful and legitimate work in the defence of human rights, in particular in combating impunity in the context of communal violence. VII. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5485.html Mainstream, VOL LIII No 9, February 21, 2015 Trying to cage a Tigress: Roused Civil Society defends Teesta Setalvad against Gujarat Attempt to Humiliate Her Monday 23 February 2015, by John Dayal Around noon on Thursday, February 19, Supreme Court Justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel extended the stay on the arrest of human rights activist and editor Teesta Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand, in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a "Museum of Resistance" at the Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad, where over 60 people were killed during the 2002 anti-Muslim riots that devastated several towns and villages in Gujarat. This pauses for some time a convoluted case that has generated interest in international and national human rights circles, in the media, and has become part of the political discourse in the country. And in some ways has also not let the Supreme Court's own reputation untouched, focusing the spotlight as it did, if only for sometime, on the friendship of the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, with a judge on the Bench which on an earlier occasion had heard the case, and been rather curt in his obiter dicta. Chief Justice H.L. Dattu had then assigned the anticipatory bail plea of Setalvad to a new Bench even though none of the two judges on the earlier Bench had sought recusal from the hearing. "The value of freedom cannot even be compared to the stars in the sky," the Court said on Thursday as it questioned the need to arrest her. The Gujarat Government had said that Teesta and her husband, Javed Anand, must be arrested to enable an investigation into allegations that they misused the money. "Who the petitioner is, that's absolutely irrelevant, the question is whether liberty can be put on ventilator or stay in intensive care unit. This isn't a case of any scam which needs custodial interrogation. This is a case of misuse of funds of NGOs." The Gujarat Police have single-mindedly pursued Teesta and Javed on a complaint filed against her by 12 persons who claim to be residents of the Gulbarg Society after the Museum project was reportedly shelved, alleging she raised Rs 9.75 crores between 2008 and 2012 through her NGO and used Rs 3.75 crores for branded clothes, shoes, and foreign travel. The Gujarat Government told the court that the couple had not been cooperative and were trying to influence witnesses. Rejecting their argument, the Court said Ms Setalvad would be asked to cooperate and submit all documents for the investigation. Her bail petition has been rejected by two other courts. Last week, as the police arrived at their Mumbai home, the couple won a last-minute reprieve when the Supreme Court agreed to hear their appeal. They have been told to provide a list of documents and names of donors as sought by the Gujarat Police and if they did not cooperate, the Gujarat Police can file an application for cancellation of their bail. The police now have to go through several thousand pages of documents and accounts of records to see if they can prove the defalcation. The papers are already with them and their lawyers for quite some time And that was the point of curiosity with civil society activists who had been following the case for some time, wondering what exactly was it that the police wanted from the couple in custodial investigation which they did not have with them already. To most it was clear that the objective never was the pursuit of evidence, or even of justice. It was to get Teesta and Javed inside a police lockup, and then in jail, to crush their spirit and humiliate them in the public eye in fulfilment of an agenda that would send out a strong signal to human rights activists, civil society and to the minority communities on the utter futility of resisting, much less challenging, the might of powerful leaders of the government and the Sangh Parivar. For Teesta, the founder with Javed of that pioneering journal, Communalism Combat, and then a citizens' group in Mumbai to fight for the victims, had pursued not just murderous hood-lums of the Sangh Parivar and police officers willing to act as henchmen of the state, but the top leaders, including Ministers, party honchos, and their ultimate Boss, Narendra Modi, then the Chief Minister of Gujarat, and now the Prime Minister of India. In case after case, she challenged them in the legal system, assisted by some excellent lawyers, exposing just about every crime that a state could commit in collaboration with political groups and a subservient, or cowardly, adminis-trative apparatus. For the first time in India, 117 perpetrators of communal violence, including a Minister in the then Modi State Cabinet, had been convicted. Had it not been for her and other rights activists, the victims would been gagged to submission. It was in not sparing Modi, and his political major-domo and now President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Amit Shah, that Teesta committed the crime of lese-majesty. "Teesta and Javed are being targeted. In the last 12 years, whenever she got a favourable development from court, the police of Gujarat have become active to target her," says Indira Jaisingh, former Additional Solicitor General of India, who was among those who addressed public meetings in solidarity with Teesta and Javed. "When all evidences in the case are documented then where is the need to arrest her and personally interrogate her? It is just to humiliate her and teach her a lesson," said she. Indira Jaisingh also expressed concern over mani-pulation of the system and referred to the clean-chit given to Amit Shah by a Mumbai court in the Gujarat fake encounter case involving three murders. "I am concerned about such ability to manipulate the system. In the case of Shah, three judges were changed. Till today, the CBI has not chosen to appeal against the order of the Mumbai court. Is the CBI a parrot in the cage of the ruling party? When the BJP was in the Opposition it would make similar accusation against the Congress-led UPA. It is not a crime to hold a view contrary to that of the government. But the government of the day thinks so. They have brute majority in the Lok Sabha. We can only speak, but they want to suppress that right too." Editor of Hindi daily Jan Satta Om Thanvi wondered as to why the police want to arrest Teesta in a 'petty' case while the accused in rape and murder cases are being released and reinstated. He also said Teesta's case has a symbolic significance. "Teesta's is a petty case. Several accused of murder and rape are being released and reinstated but Teesta and Javed are being hunted. Our right to speak is being challenged. Most in the media are supporting those who are stifling our freedom of expression. It is not an individual case of Teesta. It is symbolic." Teesta has, in interviews with Seema Mustafa of The Citizen.in and other journalists, said only around Rs. 4.6 lakhs was received by the Sabrang Trust for the proposed Museum. This amount, which was highly insufficient for the memorial, is still shown as unutilised earmarked funds in the balance-sheets of the Trust from year to year. The grossly exaggerated percentages allegedly transferred to personal accounts have been arrived at by clubbing together salaries and honorariums and reimbursements for office and equipment. G. Pramod Kumar, in an article in FirstPost.com, noted that Teesta had clarified that credit card expenses that the NGO paid for were not personal, but official such as travel. It's not unusual for people to use personal credit cards for official purposes and then get the official expenses reimbursed. But by conflating the personal (wine, groceries, books etc.) and official, the police tried to besmirch their reputation and make out a case. Similarly, additional money used from the account was for salaries and legal expenses. The police case was based on a complaint by 12 members of the Gulbarg Housing Society, but it curiously refused to take note of the submission by the Secretary and Chairman of the Society that the case was false. The latter had also informed the police that the complainants had misused office stationery. That despite an official clarifi-cation from the Gulbarg Society, the police went ahead with the case, looked clearly motivated. And now their over zealousness in seeking custodial interrogation of the couple nails their intent. Pramod Kumar noted their track record in foisting spurious cases against her. In 2012, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the state for initiating a probe for "illegal exhumation" of the 2002 riot victims. "This is a hundred per cent spurious case to victimise the petitioner (Setalvad)," said the Court. "This type of case does no credit to the State of Gujarat in any way," it further said. A year later, the police came up with the embezzlement case, despite the official representatives of the Gulbarg Society affirming that they had no complaint, and wanted to arrest Setalvad. "Obviously, Setalvad is a marked person because she is refusing to give up, along with Zakia Jafri, the complainant in the Gulbarg Society massacre case, against the Gujarat State Government and the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Although a Special Investigation Team had found no prosecutable evidence against him. Setalvad and her supporters, point to the dissenting notes by the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, who had said that the evidence against Modi was significant." In 2005, she was accused of pressuring Zaheera Sheikh in the Best Bakery Case to given evidence against the government. The SC had later absolved Setalvad and sent Zaheera Sheikh to jail for a year. "This is a classic example of a case where evidence were tampered with and witnesses won over," the Court had then said. Recently, in an Open Letter to Teesta, writer Malavika Sanghvi made poignant mention of her courage: "Through all the intricacies of the court battles to bring justice to the victims in the Best Bakery and Gulbarg Society cases, through the ascension of Modi from Gujarat CM to India's Prime Minister, feted on the international stage, through the triumphalism and hurrahs of an India all set to become a world superpower and a utopia of Right-wing policies and practices, you have stood unmoved, unrelenting, reminding us of the sins against humanity that all the perfumes of Arabia cannot wash away. And for this, your life has been turned upside down. Daily court cases to fight; witnesses to protect against threats and bribes; your motives and personal integrity questioned; and what's worst of all, as a measure of the State's dirty tricks department, you have been accused of cheating and misappropriation of funds of the very people that you have dedicated your life to empowering!" The Supreme Court ruling this week, hopefully, will help bring this harassment to an end. The author is a senior journalist, human rights activist and member of the National Integration Council. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
