The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Gujarat Police not to arrest social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds meant for a museum for riot victims.
Although the court reserved its orders on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by both Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, the Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra for the time being ordered, “It is directed that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with the case.” The Bench questioned the need for their custodial interrogation, as insisted upon by the police, stating that personal liberty cannot be curtailed particularly in a case relating to misuse of funds by a private trust.
Observing that personal liberty of a citizen is paramount, the Bench, also comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said, “No one will ever barter his liberty for all the teas in China, for all the pearls in the sea and for all the stars in the sky. Personal liberty is paramount.” The Bench was persistent in its query to the police whether the case against Setalvad was such that required “personal liberty to be taken away or curtailed”.
Gujarat Police alleged the couple of “rank non-cooperation” and “tampering with witness”. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani who appeared for Gujarat Police, defended the need for custodial interrogation. He said, “We have given them maximum opportunity to come for interrogation. They have not been answering any question and there is a stock answer and stock replies” to questions relating to names of riots victims on whose behalf donations were collected from India and abroad.
The court directed the couple to furnish all details to the Gujarat Police relating to list of donors and funds kept in the two trusts Sabrang and Citizens for Justice and Peace. “The question is whether liberty of a person can be put on ventilator or in the ICU,” the Bench asked, adding, “You require documents from them and they are obliged to provide documents under law.” The court indicated that the police will be at liberty to approach the court for cancelling bail of petitioners if they failed to cooperate with investigation.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared for Setalvad assured the court that all documents shall be supplied to police. He took a dig at the cops who were unnecessarily seeking custodial interrogation when the couple was willing to share documents. Mindful of the charge leveled by police against Setalvad, the Bench told Sibal, “Don’t act smart Mr Sibal. You provide all the documents and the list of donors.” Sibal retorted that in his 42 years practice, he had never played smart. The court permitted the petitioners’ accountant to be present while dealing with the documents but refused to indicate whether inquiry would be limited to post-2007 donations or the prior activities of NGOs since 2002.
To a request by the petitioner that the documents be collected from Mumbai, Gujarat Police opposed. This evoked sharp reactions from lawyers supporting Teesta who commented on the hurry exhibited by police to rush at petitioner's doorstep even before her anticipatory bail was rejected by the Gujarat High Court.