On June 24, the Supreme Court of India upheld Special Investigation Team (SIT) clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat Riots when he was the chief minister of the state. In the judgment, the apex court said that Zakia Jafri’s plea was devoid of merit. Interestingly, in the judgment, the Court mentioned alleged rights activist Teesta Setalvad to have exploited the emotions of the petitioner Zakia Jafri for her own ‘ulterior motives’. In a 452-page long judgment, Teesta, who was a co-petitioner in the case, was mentioned 46 times, while the main petitioner Zakia was mentioned 45 times.
The Court made some strong observations against the activist that needs attention. First of all, at the beginning of the judgment, it was clearly mentioned that the respondent (the state of Gujarat and others) objected to the hearing of this matter based on the fact that it was filed with an unexplained delay. It was an obvious objection from the respondent, but overall there were no hurdles from the state. Notably, Union Home Minister Amit Shah himself pointed out in a recent interview that he gave after the judgment that there was no reason to object to the hearing as the state had nothing to hide.
However, the state did object to the joining of Teesta Setalvad, who was Petitioner No 2 in the case. The Court said the reason mentioned by the respondent was that the protest petition filed in the lower Court was submitted only by the main petitioner Zakia Jafri that was rejected. Secondly, the judgment read, “the antecedents of Ms Teesta Setalvad need to be reckoned and also because she has been vindictively persecuting this for her ulterior design by exploiting the emotions and sentiments of the appellant – Zakia Ahsan Jafri, the real victim of the circumstances.”
The ‘misadventure of sending letters to OHCHR’
On page 30, it was mentioned that at one point, Teesta sent two letters to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights at the United Nations (OHCHR) about the case. The Court had called it ‘misadventure’ and took an undertaking that she would not repeat it. The details of the matter can be found on Page 139.
The Court observed that during the investigation, though the Court was satisfied with the performance of the SIT, Teesta raised several questions about the integrity of the investigation team (Page 138/139). The Court noted, “At one stage, a similar attempt was made by the appellant, as a result of which the Court had to stay the trial of Gulberg Society case being CR No. 67/2002, which was eventually lifted on 1.5.2009 for the reasons noted in the said order. In fact, this Court had taken note of the misadventure of Ms Teesta Setalvad in forwarding her letters written to Chairperson of the Supreme Court-appointed SIT to the OHCHR, Geneva and that upon her undertaking that she will not do so in future, the matter stood closed.”
In a way, Teesta not only raised questions over the SIT but also questioned the integrity of the honourable courts of the country by sending notes to the OHCHR.
‘Teesta tutored Zakia for statement given to Nanavati-Shah Commission’
On page 117, the court noted that in her evidence dated October 22, 2010, Zakia Ahsan Jafri admitted to the fact that RB Shreekumar and Teesta Setalvad were working together for an NGO. Teesta was convener of the Private Citizens Commission, an NGO headed by former Supreme Court Judges. The court observed that she was in a position to influence Zakia.
The court noted, “It is submitted that Ms Teesta Setalvad, for reasons best known to her and out of vengeance, was interested in continuing with her tirade and persecution on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations in the complaint in the name of the quest for justice with real purpose to keep the pot boiling and sensationalise and politicise the crime.”
On Page 118, the court observed that Zakia had admitted to concealing the fact that she had known Teesta for some time. She admitted during her cross-examination that the statement that she gave to Nanavati-Shah Commission was tutored by Teesta Setalvad. Interestingly, during cross-examination, Zakia admitted she never read the copy of her own statement to the Commission.
The court observed, “At the same time, she was unable to recall about the enquiry made by the SIT in connection with the affidavit filed by her before the Commission. And that, she had throughout followed the instructions of Ms Teesta Setalvad. In the final supplementary report filed by the SIT in Gulberg Society case being CR No. 67/2002, it has been clearly noted that nineteen witnesses insisted to take on record their prepared signed statement(s), which according to them, were prepared by Ms Teesta Setalvad and Advocate – Mr MM Tirmizi and did not show willingness to give their own statement. The statements so presented were stereotyped copies/computerised prepared statements given to them by Ms Teesta Setalvad and Advocate – Mr MM Tirmizi and they had merely signed such prepared statements.”
Appellant tried to keep the pot boiling on behest of Teesta and ilk
In its observation on Page 154, the Court pointed out that the protest petition was not a genuine one by any standard. The observation was made because of the fact that several allegations made by Zakia were found to be part of her attempts to ‘keep the pot boiling and politicising the crime’. The Court noted that Zakia kept adding new materials and allegations that the Court had to examine to do complete justice.
In a strong-worded observation, the Court said, “The appellant had the audacity to assert in the protest petition that it is open to her to keep on adding new materials and allegations which the Court is bound to examine to do complete justice, so that she would succeed in her design to keep the pot boiling and politicising the crime. This indeed was being done at the instance of the group of persons in the name of so-called public-spirited persons like Ms Teesta Setalvad. The protest petition is not a genuine protest petition by any standard.”
Notably, from Pages 148 onwards, the Court observed that the appellant tried to confuse the Court by making false allegations. At one point, she wanted the Court to disregard the version of all high officials except three who proclaimed themselves being wedded to the truth, including Sanjeev Bhatt, who is currently in jail over an alleged case of extra-judicial killing in police custody.
The Court noted that Bhatt had claimed to have been present in a meeting dated February 27, 2002, that was denied by all officers present at the meeting. Furthermore, Zakia claimed SIT did not record statements of several people who were crucial to the case, including Anil Patel. The Court said her allegations were proven false as the statements by three persons with the same name were included in the investigation report.
The appellant claimed the dead bodies of the victims of the Godhra train burning incident were intentionally paraded to instigate the people, but it was proven wrong during the investigation. During the investigation, it was revealed that the dead bodies were moved in closed vehicles, contrary to what Zakia had claimed. The Court observed the process of handing over the identified bodies to the legal representatives in detail and mentioned that the allegations raised by the appellant were completely false.
She also tried to mislead the Court by claiming that the passengers themselves or the persons belonging to their own community. Her claims were found to be untrue, and interestingly the main accused in the case, Rafiq Hussain Bhatuk, was arrested on February 16, 2021, after 19 years of the incident. Though the arrest was not mentioned in the judgment, in this case, his arrest holds significance in proving that the allegations were false.
The allegations of a larger conspiracy fell apart
On page 165, it was mentioned in the judgment that it was contended during the hearing that the allegations regarding a larger conspiracy by Teesta were out of vengeance. It was an attempt to defame the entire state of Gujarat. Solicitor General of India noted in his submission, “Appellant – Zakia Ahsan Jafri was used as a tool to further the said design, who in turn fell prey to the influence exerted by Ms Teesta Setalvad and lent her name as complainant in the complaint dated 8.6.2006 being the widow of deceased – Mr Ehsan Jafri, Member of Parliament.”
There was evidence in the final report that proved Teesta had conjured facts and evidence. “She fabricated the documents by persons who were to be prospective witnesses of the complainant. It is not only a case of fabrication of documents, but also of influencing and tutoring the witnesses and making them depose on pre-typed affidavit, as has been noted in the judgment of the High Court dated 11.7.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1692/2011,” the court observed.
Notably, SG also urged SIT to take steps to prosecute Teesta Setalvad for ‘damning the elected representatives, bureaucracy and police administration of the whole State of Gujarat for ulterior purposes’. It was further observed that Teesta and her husband, Firoz Khan Sayeed Khan Pathan, were accused of misappropriation of the funds they had collected as donations in the name of Sabrang Trust. The money was meant to be spent on poor and needy persons affected by the mass violence, but it was allegedly ‘misused and misappropriated for their personal pleasure and comfort’.
The duo had filed for anticipatory bail that was rejected by the High Court, stating custodial interrogation would be necessary in the case. The court observed, “Relying on adverse observations, it is urged that the present proceedings were not genuine proceedings and the appellant has been set up, who is unaware about the real position. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Testa Setalvad, dealing with the powers of police officer to seize certain property in the course of investigation.”
Later on page 170, it was observed that though the issues raised by the appellant were unfounded and unsubstantiated, they were pursued with full vigour at the behest of Teesta. Her sole intention, according to the court, was to keep the matter alive.
The arrest of Teesta Setalvad
On June 25, Teesta was arrested by ATS Gujarat Police for creating a sensation by making false claims about the Gujarat riots. She was brought to Ahmedabad by road from Mumbai on June 26.
