SC declines Teesta's plea for stay on recording aide's version

The apex court said it cannot be an appeallate authority and the applicant can take remedy under the law and approach the appropriate judicial forum.Setalvad's counsel then preferred to withdraw the application and accordingly, the court passed its order.

"Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application, stating that the applicant would like to pursue some other remedy, as may be available to them, in accordance with law. The application is dismissed accordingly," a Bench comprising Justices D K Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam said.

The Bench clarified that it was not going into the merits of the order of the trial court.
"We may, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the impugned order. As and when the same is challenged, the court concerned will examine it on its own merits," the Bench said, adding, "the application is dismissed as withdrawn".
Setalvad, who heads Citizens for Peace and Justice, has sought stay of the November 3 order of the special court which had allowed the application of Rais Khan, former coordinator of the NGO, seeking recording of his statement before the SIT to "expose" how she allegedly tutored witnesses to launch an attack against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

An ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jaffery was among those killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Setalvad had alleged that Khan's plea and order passed by the trial judge was an attempt to digress the process of criminal trial and to tarnish her image.
She had not named Khan as a party in the application before the apex court.
However, Khan had later filed an application seeking to be made party in the petition filed by Setalvad.

He also withdrew his application after the Bench declined to entertain Setalvad's plea.
Setalvad had maintained that the apex court in its March 26, 2008 order clearly laid down the role of SIT which was asked to look into specific cases and not to investigate anything outside the specific order. Setalvad had submitted that there was an urgent need to issue directions to the special court to conduct trials within the confines of the CrPC instead of entertaining application by Khan, a "disgruntled" former employee, when the SIT had earlier examined him and "did not find anything substantial" in his statements.

Further, the social activist had said the question on whether or not a witness has been tutored was about judicial interpretation. Assessment in that regard has to be made at the time of conclusion of the case by the trial judge.

She had said if anything has to be investigated, it is the conduct of Khan, his current association and the persons who are "using" him as a "front" to promote their motives.
She said since April 2009 when the trials relating to riot cases were on the verge of commencement, there have been "deliberate and dubious" attempts to make selective portion of these reports public.