<p>The Supreme Court reaffirmed citizens’ basic rights and the norms for bail based on them while granting bail to activist Teesta Setalvad, who had been arrested by the Gujarat police on charges of trying to implicate the state’s leaders in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. Setalvad was in custody for over two months. The court had told the Gujarat High Court to independently assess the merits of the case. It was unhappy that the High Court had delayed considering her bail plea. The High Court kept the bail plea hanging for about six weeks. The Supreme Court wondered if this was the “standard practice in Gujarat.” It is unfortunate that even a High Court had to be pushed and prodded by the SC on the right way to deal with bail applications. </p>.<p>The SC order also amounts to a strong censure of the Gujarat government, which showed great alacrity in arresting Setalvad after another bench of the court rejected, on June 26, her petition, along with that of Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, who was killed during the 2002 riots, challenging the clean chit given by an SIT appointed by the court to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi over the riots. Some comments made in the judgement against Setalvad and former police officers R B Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt were used by the Gujarat government to arrest them. The top court asked some tough questions to the government over her arrest and custody. It asked the government why no chargesheet had been filed against her even after two months in custody, if the charges against her were credible. The court expressed concern that the FIR against her parroted the comments of the bench that rejected her petition, suggesting that there was no independent investigation by the police. The court also pointed out that the nature of the alleged offence was not serious as to demand custody. It should be noted that the purported evidence was documentary, and so there was hardly the need for custody. The court has indicated this.</p>.<p>The court’s assertion of individual rights and liberties is welcome at a time when they are under attack from the State. It is unfortunate that in matters of fundamental rights, citizens have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to secure justice. In Setalvad’s case, it is likely that she is being persecuted for her support to the victims of the 2002 riots and her help and assistance to them to secure justice is being dubbed as a conspiracy against BJP leaders. The two others who were arrested with her are still in custody, having been denied bail.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court reaffirmed citizens’ basic rights and the norms for bail based on them while granting bail to activist Teesta Setalvad, who had been arrested by the Gujarat police on charges of trying to implicate the state’s leaders in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. Setalvad was in custody for over two months. The court had told the Gujarat High Court to independently assess the merits of the case. It was unhappy that the High Court had delayed considering her bail plea. The High Court kept the bail plea hanging for about six weeks. The Supreme Court wondered if this was the “standard practice in Gujarat.” It is unfortunate that even a High Court had to be pushed and prodded by the SC on the right way to deal with bail applications. </p>.<p>The SC order also amounts to a strong censure of the Gujarat government, which showed great alacrity in arresting Setalvad after another bench of the court rejected, on June 26, her petition, along with that of Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, who was killed during the 2002 riots, challenging the clean chit given by an SIT appointed by the court to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi over the riots. Some comments made in the judgement against Setalvad and former police officers R B Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt were used by the Gujarat government to arrest them. The top court asked some tough questions to the government over her arrest and custody. It asked the government why no chargesheet had been filed against her even after two months in custody, if the charges against her were credible. The court expressed concern that the FIR against her parroted the comments of the bench that rejected her petition, suggesting that there was no independent investigation by the police. The court also pointed out that the nature of the alleged offence was not serious as to demand custody. It should be noted that the purported evidence was documentary, and so there was hardly the need for custody. The court has indicated this.</p>.<p>The court’s assertion of individual rights and liberties is welcome at a time when they are under attack from the State. It is unfortunate that in matters of fundamental rights, citizens have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to secure justice. In Setalvad’s case, it is likely that she is being persecuted for her support to the victims of the 2002 riots and her help and assistance to them to secure justice is being dubbed as a conspiracy against BJP leaders. The two others who were arrested with her are still in custody, having been denied bail.</p>
