Supreme Court stays Teesta Setalvad’s arrest till Feb 19

The bench made it clear to Sibal that it would not be swayed by the names involved in the case, nor would it accord any special privilege. It added that “she (Teesta) would be treated like any other ordinary citizen”.

[related-post]

“We can guarantee you one thing that justice would be for both the parties but relief would be given only to one. It is a matter of investigation whether or not you extracted undue advantage of the riot victims and misappropriated the money collected in their names for construction of the memorial. The allegations are  grave,” said the bench.

As the hearing began, the bench said it was not inclined to entertain Teesta’s appeal against rejection of her anticipatory bail by the Gujarat High Court a day ago, prompting Sibal to question if the court would not come to the rescue of people who decided to fight against the “mighty state”.

The court shot back: “Don’t make it a political issue. She is like any other citizen of India to us and we would only examine the allegations against her. Remember, we are hearing a matter of anticipatory bail and not deciding whether charges against her require to be quashed.”
It referred to the FIR and pointed out that as per the charges, she along with her husband had allegedly shown photographs of riot victims to donors abroad and collected funds to construct the memorial, but later embezzled the money. “Victim’s FIR cannot be ignored,” it said.
The reluctance by the bench spurred Sibal to state that he, as a lawyer, has even seen a murder convict getting bail from the Supreme Court while his clients were being hounded like this.

Former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, who was not a counsel in the matter, also got up to intervene. She said she had also seen a triple murder convict getting bail and asked how bail can be denied in this case.

The bench asked Jaising not to intervene since she was not a counsel in the matter. It added: “We will not be swayed by sentiments. Not everybody can address the court like this. We make it clear that we will be looking at this case like it involves an ordinary citizen.”
Sibal then questioned the swiftness of the Gujarat police in reaching Mumbai to arrest Teesta within hours of the High Court rejecting her relief, but the bench cut him short, saying that she had been under protection from arrest since 2014 and that all this need not be brought up.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Gujarat government, sought to point out from the investigation report that Teesta Setalvad had allegedly used the embezzled money for foreign trips and to buy branded clothes and shoes. This statement evoked an intervention from former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, who asked why nobody raised questions about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s suit, which reportedly cost Rs 10 lakh. Irked, the bench asked her to maintain decorum in the court and not interfere like this.

The court adjourned the case for February 19 and told Sibal that he should be ready on that day to respond to the allegations.