SC extends interim protection to Teesta Setalvad in Gujarat riots case

The Supreme Court extended interim protection for ​​social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with the fabrication of evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. The apex court held hearing today and posted the next hearing for July 19. The SC also issued a notice to the Gujarat Government on the social activist's plea for regular bail. Setalvad has been accused of falsifying evidence in the post-Godhra riots with a malafide intention to implicate innocent persons.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which heard the plea of ​​social activist Teesta Setalvad against the Gujarat High Court's order today, extended interim protection to her in connection with the fabrication of evidence in the 2002 post-Godhra riots cases. The apex court issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the social activist's plea for regular bail. The next hearing is on July 19.

Last Saturday, the SC put a week-long stay on the bail rejection order of the Gujarat HC and granted relief to Setalvad from immediate arrest. The apex court intervened after the Gujarat High Court had rejected Setalvad's petition for regular bail, ordering her to surrender immediately in the case of alleged fabrication of evidence. Today, a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices A S Bopanna, Dipankar Dutta and B R Gavai will hear the petition of Setalvad.

The SC bench expressed displeasure over the Gujarat High Court's single judge order asking Setalvad to surrender immediately. The bench of the Supreme Court said that the social activist should have been given some time. The Supreme Court said that the single judge was completely wrong in not giving interim protection even for a week. When the apex court has granted interim bail, it would have been ideal to extend it for a week, the SC said.

When the Solicitor General said that this was not an ordinary case, the apex court asked what was the need to take the petitioner into custody when she has been on bail for 10 months. The SC further commented that the petitioner's conduct may be objectionable but the court was pondering whether a person's freedom should be taken away even for a day.