Opinion Granting bail to Teesta Setalvad, SC holds out larger promise of a vigilant court that asks questions of the powerful state
An SC bench led by new Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, by what it said and in its tone, played its constitutionally mandated role of applying the check and restoring the balance
While giving interim bail to Setalvad, the merits of the entire matter would still be independently considered by the high court. But, for now, the apex court was stepping into a case the High Court was visibly kicking down the road. The Supreme Court’s grant of interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad comes in the face of an unconscionable lack of urgency shown by the Gujarat High Court, and against pointed resistance by the state. The SC order is both welcome and reassuring. Setalvad has been in custody for over two months in a case of alleged fabrication of documents relating to the Gujarat 2002 riots. In fact, her arrest on June 26 had followed from another SC order which was disquieting in the way it provided direct cues for the police FIR filed against her the very next day. While upholding the SIT’s clean chit to the then state government led by Narendra Modi for the communal violence in 2002, the SC had castigated those who, it said, had kept “the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design” and who “need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law”. On Thursday and Friday, however, an SC bench led by new Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, by what it said and in its tone, played its constitutionally mandated role of applying the check and restoring the balance.
Of course, as the SC pointed out on Friday while giving interim bail to Setalvad, the merits of the entire matter would still be independently considered by the high court. But, for now, the apex court was stepping into a case the High Court was visibly kicking down the road. Its intervention depended on “facts and circumstances” of a case, the SC said, and wondered if the Gujarat HC was singling out Setalvad’s case for delay – the HC had issued notice on August 3 and made it returnable on September 19, effectively keeping the bail plea hanging for six weeks. Was this the “standard practice in Gujarat”, the SC asked. It also asked sharp questions regarding the case made against Setalvad so far by the state. Was it necessary to keep her in custody, it asked, when even a chargesheet has not been filed after over two months of her arrest and the FIR only cited what had been said by the court. It was not as if Setalvad was accused of a heinous offence, it pointed out, or one in which difficult conditions are imposed to get bail.
In recent times, the apex court has displayed a worrying lack of alacrity in matters of individual rights and liberties being encroached upon by the state, and in far too many instances, it has given the state the benefit of the doubt. Now, the SC’s stance — on the side of the individual, calling to account the powerful state — holds out a larger promise of a vigilant court, regardless of the final outcome of the Setalvad case, and whatever course it takes.
Share
