PUCL Statement
Stop Persecution, by False Prosecution, of Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand!
The PUCL welcomes the Supreme Court granting an immediate stay on the
Gujarat High Court order permitting the custodial interrogation of journalists and
Human Rights Defenders, Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand, while refusing to grant
them anticipatory bail. The Gujarat High Court passed its order on the 12th of February
in the FIR of alleged misappropriation of funds collected for building a memorial for the
2002 and other riot victims of the Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad. In the same matter it
also granted bail to three other accused of the same charge.
This is not the first time that Teesta Setalvad is being targetted through false
FIRs. Earlier too in the Best Bakery case of Vadodara and the Exhumation case of
Panchmahals, there were efforts to malign the name and credibility of journalists Teesta
and Javed Anand; however, both were stayed by the Supreme Court. It also cannot be
ignored that it was through the efforts of Teesta, Javed and other activists of Gujarat and
outside, that 117 people have been given life imprisonment for perpetrating the 2002
Gujarat mass killings, including Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and former Gujarat
minister Maya Kodnani. Incidentally Gujarat state is the only one where so many victims
of communal violence have got justice, thanks to the untiring efforts of human rights
defenders like Teesta Setalvad, Javed Anand, CJP and others.
PUCL had brought to the attention of the NHRC the type of persecution and
prosecution by Gujarat police of Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand and the CJP for
persistently seeking justice for the victims of the communal holocaust in Gujarat in
2002 following the Godhra incidents. We had pointed out that the, “allegations of
financial impropriety are easy to make; but the damage such allegations cause to
individual reputation and self respect is irreparable. Very often though nothing much
comes out of such allegations finally, the allegations would well have achieved their
purpose of putting the individuals and organisations concerned on the defensive and
force them to necessarily participate in an endless spiral of litigation trying to prove
their innocence. Apart from diverting defenders from the main task of protecting,
promoting and preserving human rights work, immense amounts of time, physical and
emotional energy, and finances are lost in fighting malicious prosecutions and
Seen in this backdrop the dogged and repeated demand of the Gujarat police
seeking the arrest and “custodial interrogation” of Teesta and Javed is a matter of grave
Firstly, we would like to highlight that legally the direction of the Gujarat High
Court seeking custodial interrogation is in violation of the fundamental right under Art.
20(3) of the Constitution that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be
a witness against himself”.
Secondly, we would like to point out that factually during the pendency of the
anticipatory bail before the Gujarat High Court, Teesta and Javed in obedience to the
directions of the court had presented themselves regularly before the investigation
officers. They were subjected to hours of questioning each time during which they fully
cooperated. Reportedly all documents including audited accounts, bank statements of
the individuals and the Trust, resolutions of trustees and so on were submitted.
Voluminous documents were filed before the Gujarat High Court as well. Hence the
insistence of the Gujarat police for `custodial interrogation’ appears to be more a veiled
threat of third degree methods and torture than any genuine necessity for investigation.
PUCL would like to point out that the SC has clearly spelt out the law relating to
arrest and custodial interrogation in the landmark case of `Joginder Kumar vs State of
UP’ (1994). The SC has pointed out that arrest and detention in police lock-up of a
person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person and
therefore no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of
commission of an offence made against a person. Pointing out that it would be “prudent
for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen
and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable
satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a
complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to
the need to effect arrest”. Stressing that denying a person of her / his liberty is a
serious matter the SC said, “A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of
complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of
the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in
heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person
to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would
do.” ((1994) 4 SCC 260 at page 267, emphasis ours).
Very importantly, the apex court also pointed out that “No arrest can be made
because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest
is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer
must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so”. The court thereafter
pointed out that arrest and custodial interrogation that follows should be only in the
following circumstances: (i) if the accused persons will flee justice or (ii) tamper with
evidence or (iii) intimidate witnesses. The ruling of the Supreme Court is now a
statutory safeguard incorporated in section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code as
None of these three situations exists in the case of Teesta and Javed, who have
been regularly appearing before the authorities. They have always produced required
documents even when it was clear that the police were on a fishing expedition
desperately trying to find some evidence to pin against them. It is necessary also to
point out that the accusation against Teesta and Javed are not of having committed
heinous offences but financial ones, all of which can be established or disproved mainly
on documentary evidences.
PUCL is disturbed by the other sweeping and unwarranted comments made by
the Gujarat High Court about the role of individuals and NGOs. We are however
confident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court will ensure that justice is eventually done as
the judiciary is the only bulwark against abuse of power by the executive against
human rights defenders.
We also hope that the SC will consider ordering an impartial enquiry into the
matter by an independent agency under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court as
was ordered in other cases related to Gujarat communal violence. This will help
establish the truth.
Prof. Prabhakar Sinha Dr. V. Suresh
President, PUCL General Secretary, PUCL
No comments:
Post a Comment