Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujrat

CITATION	(2023) 6 SCC 429
DATE OF JUDGMENT	July 19, 2023
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Teesta Atul Setalvad
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat
BENCH	Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice Dipankar Datta

INTRODUCTION

The case of Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat is a significant legal matter in the Indian judicial landscape. Teesta Setalvad is a prominent civil rights activist and journalist in India, known for her work in advocating for justice for the victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots. The case involves her legal challenges against the State of Gujarat, primarily related to allegations of misappropriation of funds, criminal conspiracy, and attempts to fabricate evidence in cases related to the riots. The State of Gujarat initiated criminal proceedings against Teesta Setalvad, accusing her of embezzling funds meant for the riot victims and fabricating evidence. Setalvad and her supporters have claimed that these charges are politically motivated and aimed at silencing her activism. The legal battle has seen multiple twists, with petitions filed in various courts, including the Supreme Court of India.

FACTS

1.  Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand were accused by the Gujarat government of embezzling funds meant for riot victims. The allegations included charges of misappropriation of funds collected in the name of charity and using them for personal expenses.

• The Gujarat Police filed an FIR (First Information Report) against Setalvad and others under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.
• Teesta Setalvad approached the courts seeking anticipatory bail to prevent her arrest.
• The Bombay High Court granted her interim protection from arrest.
• The Gujarat government opposed this, seeking her custodial interrogation.
• The Supreme Court of India intervened in the matter when Setalvad filed a petition challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to grant her anticipatory bail.
• The Supreme Court granted her interim relief from arrest but later directed that she must cooperate with the investigation.

ISSUES RAISED

1. The State of Gujarat accused Teesta Setalvad of fabricating evidence and tutoring witnesses in cases related to the 2002 Gujarat riots. The allegations claimed that she manipulated evidence to falsely implicate government officials and others in the violence.
2. Teesta Setalvad and her husband were accused of misappropriating funds meant for riot victims. The state alleged that the funds collected by the NGO run by Setalvad were used for personal expenses rather than for the intended purpose of helping the victims of the Gujarat riots.
3. The case raised significant questions about the limits of activism and freedom of speech. Setalvad argued that the charges against her were motivated by her vocal stance against the Gujarat government’s role in the 2002 riots and were intended to silence her activism.
4. The case highlighted the broader issue of the protection available to human rights activists in India. It raised concerns about whether the legal system was being used to intimidate and harass individuals who take on politically sensitive causes.
5. The judiciary’s role in either supporting or dismissing the allegations against Setalvad became a focal point. The case tested the judiciary’s independence and its willingness to protect individual rights against state actions.[1]

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The appellant contended that the charges against her, which included allegations of fabricating evidence and influencing witnesses in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots cases, were baseless and motivated by political vendetta.
2.  She argued that her efforts were aimed at seeking justice for the victims of the riots, and that the allegations were intended to undermine her credibility and activism.
3.   Another major contention was against the accusations of misappropriating funds that were allegedly collected for the riot victims. Teesta Setalvad argued that the funds were used for legitimate purposes related to the cause and that there was no evidence of financial wrongdoing. She maintained that the investigations into the financial aspects were flawed and carried out with bias.
4. The appellant claimed that the proceedings against her violated her fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial, due process, and freedom of expression. She argued that the legal actions were intended to harass and silence her activism.
5. Setalvad’s defence argued that the State of Gujarat had a bias against her due to her active role in bringing attention to the state’s alleged complicity in the 2002 riots. They contended that the prosecution was driven by malafide intent, aimed at tarnishing her reputation and deterring her from continuing her work in human rights.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The State of Gujarat contend that Teesta Setalvad and her NGOs misused funds meant for the welfare of the riot victims. The state could argue that these funds were used for personal and other purposes not related to the intended beneficiaries.
2. The State argue that Teesta Setalvad has been involved in the fabrication of evidence and false affidavits in cases related to the Gujarat riots. This could include allegations that she coached witnesses or presented false evidence to implicate certain individuals.
3. The respondent challenges the credibility and intentions of Teesta Setalvad, arguing that her actions were politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing the image of the state government rather than seeking justice for the victims.
4. The State raise procedural objections, such as questioning the jurisdiction of the court or the maintainability of the petitions filed by Setalvad. This could include arguments that the cases were filed with ulterior motives or were an abuse of the legal process.
5. The State of Gujarat defend its actions during and after the riots, arguing that it acted within the bounds of law and that Teesta Setalvad’s allegations were exaggerated or unfounded.
6. The respondent argues that the actions taken against Setalvad were in the public interest and were necessary to maintain law and order. The state could contend that it has a sovereign right to take action against individuals who allegedly engage in activities that harm public order or the state’s interests.
7. The State claim that the activities of Teesta Setalvad were detrimental to the security and stability of the state, possibly leading to communal tensions or unrest.

RATIONAL

1. The State of Gujarat filed cases against Teesta Setalvad, accusing her of various charges, including:

Misappropriation of funds: Allegations that she misused funds collected for the victims of the Gujarat riots.

Fabrication of evidence: Accusations that she tampered with evidence and influenced witnesses to present a biased case in court.

Defamation: Charges related to defamation of the state and its officials.

• Teesta Setalvad’s defence has often invoked Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Her legal team argues that her activism and statements were within her constitutional rights as a citizen advocating for justice.
• Her work is also defended on the grounds that it upholds the rule of law, ensuring that the legal system is accessible to all, especially the marginalized. The pursuit of justice for the riot victims is framed as a moral and legal obligation.
• The charges against Setalvad have been criticized as being politically motivated and an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. Her defence argues that the state’s actions against her amount to an abuse of legal processes intended to intimidate and suppress activists.
• Setalvad’s legal battles are portrayed as part of a larger fight for human rights and accountability, especially in cases where state complicity is alleged in incidents of mass violence.
• The case also involves the interpretation of various judicial precedents concerning the admissibility of evidence, the right to a fair trial, and the protection of activists and whistleblowers.
• The court has to balance between actions taken in the public interest (like exposing state negligence during riots) and actions that might be perceived as a personal vendetta against state officials.[2]

DEFECTS OF LAW

1. The lack of safeguards against the misuse of laws intended to prosecute criminal activity can result in the persecution of individuals or organizations working in the public interest.
2. The protracted nature of legal proceedings in India can often lead to delays in justice. This can be particularly problematic in cases involving human rights, where timely action is crucial. The slow pace of judicial proceedings, coupled with potential delays in investigation and prosecution, undermines the efficacy of the legal system in delivering justice promptly.
3. There is a need for stronger legal protections for whistleblowers and human rights defenders to ensure they can perform their duties without fear of retaliation.
4.  High-profile cases, such as this one, often become subjects of intense media scrutiny, which can lead to a media trial and influence public perception. The lack of mechanisms to prevent media trials can lead to prejudgment, affecting the fairness of the legal process.[3]

INFERENCE

The case of Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat deals with issues surrounding human rights, activism, and allegations of misuse of legal processes. Teesta Setalvad, a well-known human rights activist, has been involved in legal battles related to her work, particularly concerning the Gujarat riots of 2002. The central issue in this case often revolves around the alleged misuse of the legal process by Teesta Setalvad. The State of Gujarat has accused her of misappropriating funds intended for riot victims and of filing false cases to harass individuals. The case touches upon the abuse of process doctrine, where the court must determine whether legal actions are being used for legitimate purposes or if they are being exploited to harass and intimidate.

The courts must ensure that Setalvad’s right to a fair trial is upheld, including protection against arbitrary arrest and ensuring that the legal process is not misused to silence her activism. The judiciary’s role in protecting human rights defenders is crucial, as it must balance the state’s power with the individual’s right to freedom of speech, assembly, and the pursuit of justice. The burden of proof lies with the State to substantiate the allegations of fund misappropriation and misuse of the legal process, requiring concrete evidence rather than conjecture or political motivations. The case exemplifies the tension between state power and individual rights, particularly in the context of activism and human rights. The courts play a pivotal role in ensuring that justice is served without prejudice and that legal processes are not weaponized against those seeking to uphold human rights. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the protection of activists and the accountability of the state in democratic societies.[4]

NAME: SUMMAIYA KHAN

COLLEGE: BALAJI LAW COLLEGE

---

[1] Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 429.

[2] Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujrat (indiankanoon.org).

[3] SCC Online, www.ssconline.in (24^th September 2024)

[4] Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujrat (indiankanoon.org)