On the night of 1st July, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India granted bail to controversial activist Teesta Setalvad, overturning the Gujarat High Court’s orders to surrender immediately. Setalvad is accused of fabricating evidence, tutoring witnesses, and defaming the Gujarat government in matters related to Gujarat Riots 2002.
It had come to light that when Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was informed about the two-judge bench decision to forward the matter to a larger bench as they could not come to a unanimous decision on extending bail granted to Setalvad, he was attending a Bharatnatyam event. As per reports, CJI left the hall multiple times to ensure the formation of a three-judge bench to hear the matter urgently.
In a report, NDTV reported that CJI was at Chinmay Mission to attend the Bharatnatyam dance performance of Suvarna Vishvanathan, daughter of Supreme Court justice KV Vishvanathan. Most of the people linked to the hearing were present at the event, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Around 6 PM, after the dance performance commenced, Setalvad’s lawyers approached the Supreme Court against Gujarat High Court’s orders to surrender immediately. The hearing was scheduled for 6:30 PM before Justice AS Oka and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. SG Mehta was informed, after which he left the performance to represent the Gujarat government. After the two-judge bench could not reach a unanimous decision, the matter was forwarded to CJI, who was still at the event.
At around 7 PM, CJI was seen leaving the hall to discuss the matter. Meanwhile, SG Mehta returned to the event. Shortly after, CJI left for 10 minutes and came back to enjoy the performance.
Following the dance performance, he informed Justice BR Gavai and Justice AS Bopanna about the matter. They agreed to be part of the larger bench, including the two judges and Justice Deepankar Datta. The hearing began at 9:15 PM. At around 10 PM, the court granted Setalvad interim protection from the arrest.
Granting the bail to Teesta Setalvad, the bench said, “We are not going into the merits of the matter. We are only concerned with that part of the order which rejected the petitioner’s request for a stay. In ordinary circumstances, we would not have interfered. After the petitioner was arrested, this Court considered her request for interim bail. One of the factors which weighed with this Court in granting interim bail was that the petitioner was a lady and was entitled to special protection under S.437 CrPC. Considering this fact, the single learned judge ought to have granted some time…We stay the order of the single bench for a period of one week.”
