(function (d) {
var js, s = d.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];
js = d.createElement(‘script’);
js.async = true;
js.src = ‘//cdn.teads.tv/media/format.js’;
s.parentNode.insertBefore(js, s);
})(window.document);
<!– FP CRONTAB –>
Teesta Setalvad
The Centre must understand that if minorities were feeling insecure, India would become weak and divisive forces would gather strength, activist Teesta Setalvad said in Aligarh. “We are witnessing a very determined bid by fascist forces to denigrate the country’s Constitution and the entire socio-justice system which safeguards the interests of the weakest and most vulnerable sections of society,” she alleged, while delivering a lecture at the Aligarh Muslim University. Accusing BJP leaders of using words loaded with communal overtones, she said that government should know that without social justice there is no democracy.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>She also said that the minorities should act with some restraint. “I urge you not to be provoked by the actions and hate speeches of the communal forces….Instead channelise energies for building bridges of understanding with Hindus and all sections of society…. This is the only way to remove the narrative of hatred.”She was speaking on Preamble to India’s Constitution and the Equality Challenger to Constitutional Government organised by AMU last evening. Delivering the presidential address, historian Prof Emeritus Irfan Habib said there was reason for hope as Indian civil society had in recent weeks “displayed an unprecedented courage by registering their concern”.”Remember that all those who are raising their voices in your defence are Hindus and if you want to strengthen their hands, then your hands too will have to be clean.” He reminded that all three rationalists and writers who had been killed in recent months were Hindus. He said that “minority communalism” would be an inappropriate response to the “communal polarisation”.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed sacked Bhatt’s petitions seeking a court-monitored SIT probe in relation to the two FIRs against him for allegedly forcing his subordinate to file an affidavit in a 2002 riots case and hacking e-mail of a senior law officer, who is now an Additional Solicitor General.
File Photo
dna Research & Archives
Hailing Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss sacked IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s petitions, Communications and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Wednesday said that the apex court has confirmed the apprehensions that they had all these years. The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed sacked Bhatt’s petitions seeking a court-monitored SIT probe in relation to the two FIRs against him for allegedly forcing his subordinate to file an affidavit in a 2002 riots case and hacking e-mail of a senior law officer, who is now an Additional Solicitor General. His allegation was dubbed as totally “false and baseless” that the apex court-appointed Special Investigating Team (SIT) to probe the 2002 Gujarat riots cases had been leaking very sensitive and confidential details.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Ravi Shankar Prasad on Wednesday said, “Today, it’s a matter of great assurance for us, SC rejected Sanjiv Bhatt’s petition. What is truly remarkable is, SC in a judgement has confirmed with positive evidence all the apprehensions we had for so many years. Namely there is a group patronised by Congress of NGOs, selected bureaucrats, civil servants, police officers, who are doing their bid to defame the Gujarat government, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah.””In case of Sanjiv Bhatt, he was in close association with Congress party, he was emailing them about proceeding before Nanavati Commission. He was trying to manipulate a section of media for his own extraneous purposes and what not including collusion with the NGO of Teesta Setalvad.”The top court noted in its judgement the contents of the e-mail exchanged by Bhatt, who was a high ranking officer, with an activist of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) in which he has “mentioned to create a situation so as to make it difficult for a 3-Judge Bench of this Court to disregard shortcomings of SIT and exerting pressure by the groups and opinion makers in Delhi” in the case of Zakia Jafri seeking lodging of FIR against politicians and cops of Gujarat. “It is apparent the petitioner had acted in deliberation and consultation with the leaders of rival political party, NGOs and had sent the e-mails to the effect that he was not fully exploited by a counsel of the rival political party while his statement was being recorded before Justice Nanavati Commission.Read: Sacked IPS Sanjiv Bhatt didn’t come with ‘clean hands’, tried to mislead: Supreme CourtMeanwhile, the Supreme Court on Wednesday told social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband that their failure to adhere to the conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court may lead to the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to them in a case where they have been accused of misusing foreign funds.The apex court asked Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand to cooperate with the CBI in its investigation in the case in which their company, Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Ltd (SCPPL), had received Rs 1.8 crore from US-based Ford Foundation allegedly without mandatory approval from the Centre. It orally observed that their “anticipatory bail may be cancelled if they would not follow the conditions imposed by the High Court.”Related read- SC to Teesta Setalvad: Non-cooperation in FCRA probe will lead to cancellation of anticipatory bail
Setalvad’s husband Javed Anand has also been granted relief till the next hearing in the case.
Teesta Setalvad
In a big relief for Teesta Setalvad, Supreme Court has extended interim bail granted to her in fund embezzlement case lodged by Gujarat police till December 5.Setalvad’s husband Javed Anand has also been granted relief till the next hearing in the case.Teesta moved to the Supreme Court after Gujarat High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail. SC has asked Teesta and her husband to adhere to conditions imposed by Bombay HC while granting them relief. <!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>SC has also sought response from Teesta Setalvad, husband on CBI’s plea for cancellation of their anticipatory bail in FCRA violation case. The Supreme Court had on Monday termed as “mistake” its earlier order extending interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta Setalvad and her husband, indicating that the relief was granted by a two-judge bench earlier instead of three.”Earlier, it was a mistake,” a bench comprising justices A R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel observed when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the activist, said the protection against arrest was expiring on October 15 and moreover, last time this two-judge bench had itself extended the relief.”It is a three-judge bench matter… place it before the appropriate bench,” the court said and asked Sibal to mention it before the Chief Justice for making available the special bench to extend the relief.With agency inputs
Narendra Modi
1. PM Modi has made global impact with his foreign visits: US NGOPraising the efforts of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a US-based NGO on Monday said his systematic approach in reaching out to the rest of the world, including his recent visit to Silicon Valley, has made a huge global impact which will bring concrete benefits, specially in terms of foreign investments for India, in the coming future. Read more here.2. At least 38 Indians missing in Iraq are alive: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Around 38 Indians missing in Iraq for several months are alive, according to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who, however, provided no evidence to back up the claim. Read more here.3. PM Modi asks bureaucrats to work with team spirit, trustPrime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday asked bureaucrats to work with mutual team spirit and trust besides encouraging them to go for innovation and make judicious use of technology. Read more here.4. Giving bail to Teesta Setalvad a ‘mistake’, says Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court on Monday termed as a “mistake” on technical grounds an order extending interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta Setalvad and her husband, indicating that the relief was granted by a two-judge bench earlier instead of three. Read more here.5. BJP winning in Bihar, says Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh YadavIt’s not for nothing that Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav is considered a master of flip-flops in politics. He demonstrated his unique ability once again on Monday by speaking out in favour of arch rival BJP, even predicting a win for the BJP in Bihar. Read more here.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday termed as a “mistake” on technical grounds an order extending interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta Setalvad and her husband, indicating that the relief was granted by a two-judge bench earlier instead of three.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP
“Earlier, it was a mistake,” a bench comprising justices AR Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel observed when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the activist, said the protection against arrest was expiring on 15 October and moreover, last time this two-judge bench had itself extended the relief.
“It is a three-judge bench matter… place it before the appropriate bench,” the court said and asked Sibal to mention it before the Chief Justice for making available the special bench to extend the relief.
“I do not want to lose the protection,” Sibal said. The relief was granted to the activist couple in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society that was devastated in the 2002 riots.
Meanwhile, the counsel for Gujarat police sought adjournment on the hearing of its plea seeking a direction to Teesta for supplying certain documents, which was allowed.
The court, on 11 September, had extended by four weeks the interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta Setalvad and her husband in the case.
Sibal had then mentioned the issue on behalf of the couple, saying the interim order was expiring on 15 September.
also see
Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand have challenged the order of the Gujarat High Court denying them anticipatory bail in the case. The High Court order was stayed by the apex court and has been pending to be heard by a three-judge bench.
The apex court had on 16 April constituted the three-judge bench to hear afresh the anticipatory bail plea of Setalvad and her husband as a two-judge bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel on 19 March had referred it to a larger bench and extended its interim order protecting them against arrest till the larger bench takes up the matter.
The couple have denied all charges levelled by Gujarat Police, which in an affidavit in July had alleged that they had misappropriated funds meant for charity for personal expenses, buying items ranging from wine to mobile phone, besides tampering with evidence.
Teesta and her husband, who have been fighting for justice for the riot victims, have denied all allegations contending that they have been implicated in the case and were victims of political vendetta.
PTI
The CBI had, on July 8, registered a case against Setalvad and Anand, alleging that her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Limited (SCPPL) had received around 2.90 lakh USD in foreign donations in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
The Supreme Court has extended interim protection to activist Teesta Setalvad against arrest by four more weeks in alleged fund embezzlement case. The Bombay High Court on 11 August, 2015, granted anticipatory bail to activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, who are being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged misappropriation of funds received from a foreign institution.Justice Mridula Bhatkar, while refusing the CBI’s plea seeking custodial interrogation of the two, noted, “Prima facie, I am unable to find any act which would bear a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the state or threat to the security, strategic, economic or public interest.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Justice Bhatkar at that time, rejected CBI’s argument that the criminal antecedents of the two activists, who have been highlighting the cause of victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots, need to be gone into before deciding on the anticipatory bail application.”A citizen may conduct social activities and have a different point of view, which may not be liked by the government. However, in a democratic state, a citizen may have his/her different point of view and the state should protect that different point of view,” the court said.”A dissenting view cannot be termed as against the sovereignty of the state. It may be said that it is against the policy of the state. These are two different things.”The court granted anticipatory bail to each of them for Rs20,000, in case of arrest, and directed them to cooperate with the CBI and make themselves available to the probe agency as and when required, until filing of the charge sheet.The special CBI court had, in July, rejected the plea which was challenged in the high court. Justice Bhatkar, while allowing it, took into consideration that the accused were Indians and their probability of absconding was negligible. “Prima facie, the case is relating to accounts not maintained and unavailable documents. If they are not produced, then a prosecution can be lodged and charges framed, for which custodial interrogation is not required,” she said.The CBI had, on July 8, registered a case against Setalvad and Anand, alleging that her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Limited (SCPPL) had received around 2.90 lakh USD in foreign donations in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).It is alleged that SCPPL was not registered under FCRA for collecting money from abroad and the amount of nearly Rs1.8 crore was, therefore, received in violation of the Act, as the organisation needed to seek prior approval from the union home ministry. The activists were not disclosing where they had utilised the funds received.However, the activists, through their counsel Aspi Chenoy, had argued that the funds received were not donations but fees paid towards the services hired by the foreign organisation, Four Foundation. It was informed that income tax was duly deducted and no objection had been raised by the department in 2004 to 2006.With inputs from Mustafa Plumber
They accused the ruling party of being a power ambitious of becoming fascist and adopting tactics used by German dictator Adolf Hitler.
Modi govt creating “extremely dangerous” scenario.
Members of civil society on Saturday accused the Narendra Modi dispensation of fundamentally redefining identities, isolating and denying recognition to cultural streams and claimed that the country was being governed by the RSS and not the BJP. The members also expressed concerns over alleged replacement of history by mythology “inventing facts”, renaming of roads, appointments of people close to power centre at premium institutes, etc which they said create “extremely dangerous” scenario.Speaking to reporters, they accused the ruling party of being a power ambitious of becoming fascist and adopting tactics used by German dictator Adolf Hitler in the European country to influence people. “We must realise we are today governed not by the BJP as in the previous NDA government, but the RSS. And the RSS, from its inception, has never concealed its admiration for the fascism. Here we are dealing with perhaps not the actual fascist power, but the power ambitious of being fascist,” Irfan Habib, Professor with Aligarh Muslim University, said during a press briefing organised by NGO Sahmant.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Referring to remarks of Indian Council of History Research (ICHR) chairman Sudershan Rao’s that Mahabharata and Ramayana can be used in research, Habib accused the Centre of replacing history like Hitler did and “inventing” facts. Habib also termed renaming Aurangzeb Road as an “ominous” development.”In this atmosphere, renaming of Aurangzeb Road is an ominous development. This renaming effort is condemnable and this be reversed,” he demanded.Civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad seconded Habib over “complete paradigm shift in what is dictating country’s educational and cultural policy” which she termed as being an “extremely dangerous” scenario.
Teesta Setalvad tells the BBC’s Soutik Biswas she has been vilified for running a dogged campaign to hold PM Narendra Modi responsible for the Gujarat riots.
The Gujarat High Court on Monday condoned the delay in filing a plea by social activist Teesta Setalvad to defreeze her bank accounts in the alleged fund embezzlement case and fixed the next hearing on August 5.
The Gujarat High Court on Monday condoned the delay in filing a plea by social activist Teesta Setalvad to defreeze her bank accounts in the alleged fund embezzlement case and fixed the next hearing on August 5.Last month Setalwad had moved the plea to defreeze her bank accounts in an alleged embezzlement case wherein she had allegedly collected Rs 1.51 crore from national and international donors promising to convert Gulberg Society to a 2002 riots museum, but allegedly spent money for personal purposes. The city crime branch had frozen the bank accounts of Setlavad, her husband Javed Anand and two of their NGOs’ accounts after they began probe into the embezzlement case filed by a former resident of Gulberg Society last year.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>They had challenged the order of a city metropolitan court, which had rejected their pleas to defreeze the bank accounts in November 2014. However, as the plea was filed 90 days after the order was given, the applicant filed to condone the delay.During the hearing today, Teesta’s lawyer Kalpesh Shastri contended that the delay in filing the application was caused mainly because his client was busy trying for anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court.Justice Sonia Gokani took into account these explanations and admitted the application. The next hearing has been fixed on August 5.
Mumbai: In a breather to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted the duo 17-day interim relief from arrest in a CBI case alleging that her company received Rs 1.8 crore from abroad without mandatory approval from Centre.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP
Justice Mridula Bhatkar, while granting Teesta and her husband Javed Anand interim protection from arrest till 10 August, said the duo was already given protection by the sessions court.
Teesta and Anand moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail after a special CBI court on Friday rejected their pre-arrest bail pleas and also refused to extend the interim relief granted to them earlier on 17 July.
“At this stage I do not want to go into merits. Is there any chance of the accused persons absconding? If no, then interim protection can be granted for a period of two weeks,” Justice Bhatkar said.
The court directed Teesta and her husband to appear before the office of Economic Offences Wing of CBI on 27 and 30 July and on 3 and 6 August for recording their statement from 12 pm to 3 pm.
The court refused to agree to the CBI’s demand to direct the duo to appear before the agency everyday.
“They (Teesta and Javed) have been appearing before you (CBI) from July 17. You must have done some investigation. Everyday appearance is not required,” Justice Bhatkar said.
also see
Public Prosecutor Sandeep Shinde, appearing for CBI, argued that the offence was of a serious nature and custodial interrogation was required.
The court has posted their anticipatory bail petitions for final hearing on 10 August.
Soon after the sessions court rejected her bail pleas, Teesta told the court that she was shocked and aggrieved.
“I am shocked and aggrieved by the verdict as this is a petty offence. My sympathisers feel that this is an attempt (by the government) to intimidate and possibly eliminate us by the powers (sic),” she said.
The CBI had on 8 July registered a case against Teesta and Anand alleging that her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Limited (SCPPL) received around 2.9 lakh USD in foreign donations in violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
PTI
Mumbai: In a breather to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted the duo 17-day interim relief from arrest in a CBI case alleging that her company received Rs 1.8 crore from abroad without mandatory approval from Centre.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP
Justice Mridula Bhatkar, while granting Teesta and her husband Javed Anand interim protection from arrest till 10 August, said the duo was already given protection by the sessions court.
Teesta and Anand moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail after a special CBI court on Friday rejected their pre-arrest bail pleas and also refused to extend the interim relief granted to them earlier on 17 July.
“At this stage I do not want to go into merits. Is there any chance of the accused persons absconding? If no, then interim protection can be granted for a period of two weeks,” Justice Bhatkar said.
The court directed Teesta and her husband to appear before the office of Economic Offences Wing of CBI on 27 and 30 July and on 3 and 6 August for recording their statement from 12 pm to 3 pm.
The court refused to agree to the CBI’s demand to direct the duo to appear before the agency everyday.
“They (Teesta and Javed) have been appearing before you (CBI) from July 17. You must have done some investigation. Everyday appearance is not required,” Justice Bhatkar said.
also see
Public Prosecutor Sandeep Shinde, appearing for CBI, argued that the offence was of a serious nature and custodial interrogation was required.
The court has posted their anticipatory bail petitions for final hearing on 10 August.
Soon after the sessions court rejected her bail pleas, Teesta told the court that she was shocked and aggrieved.
“I am shocked and aggrieved by the verdict as this is a petty offence. My sympathisers feel that this is an attempt (by the government) to intimidate and possibly eliminate us by the powers (sic),” she said.
The CBI had on 8 July registered a case against Teesta and Anand alleging that her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Limited (SCPPL) received around 2.9 lakh USD in foreign donations in violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
PTI
The NGO will have to take prior permission from the foreigners division of the Home Ministry before accepting or utilising the foreign contribution.
File Photo
Compounding activist Teesta Setalvad’s trouble, her NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been put under Prior Permission category by the Home Ministry. The decision has been taken following an investigation by the Home Ministry which found alleged violation of various provisions of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act by CJP.”The NGO will have to take prior permission from the foreigners division of the Home Ministry before accepting or utilising the foreign contribution,” an official said.CJP, which has been fighting cases for victims of 2002 Gujarat riots, had received a total foreign contribution of around Rs 1.18 crore from 2008-09 to 2013-14. According to the notice, more than 80 per cent or nearly Rs 95 lakh was spent for legal aid. Citizens for Justice and Peace and Sabarang Trust, run by Teesta and her husband Javed Anand, were served notices by the Home Ministry about two months ago asking the NGOs why their registration under FCRA would not be cancelled as on-site inspection of records and books of accounts of the two found “irregularities and financial misappropriation”.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>While CJP was registered for ‘Educational and Economic’ purposes, it received foreign contribution for activities such as ‘Legal Aid’ which is covered under purpose ‘Social’. Hence, it violated FCRA rules, the Home Ministry contended. “On review of vouchers of the Association, it was found that Sabrang Trust (another NGO of Teesta) have made payment of Rs 12 lakh from FCRA designated account to Citi Bank and Union Bank of India on account of credit facilities taken through credit cards belonging to Setalvad and Anand.”This amounts to use of foreign contribution for the purposes not authorised as per the provisions of FCRA 2010. Thus, the Association has violated Section 8(1) (a) of FCRA 2010,” the Home Ministry notice had said.The Ministry’s investigation also found that Anand has taken international medical policy for visiting Lahore and debited the amount in the account of Sabrang Trust. Facing the notices, the two NGOs have conveyed to the Home Ministry that they have done no financial irregularities and no foreign contribution was misused by any of its office-bearer.
Mumbai: A special CBI court here today rejected the anticipatory bail application of social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband filed in connection with a case registered by CBI alleging that her company received Rs 1.8 crore from abroad without mandatory approval from Centre.
“The anticipatory bail application is rejected,” said Special judge Anis Khan while turning down the plea.
Teesta Setalvad. Image courtesy: AFP
Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand had moved the court for bail on July 17.
Immediately after the order, Setalvad told the court that she was shocked. “I am shocked and aggrieved by the verdict as this is a petty offence. My sympathisers feel that this is an attempt (by the government) to intimidate and possibly eliminate us by the powers (sic).”
The CBI had on July 8 registered a case against Setalvad and Anand alleging that her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Limited (SCPPL) received around 2.9 lakh USD in foreign donations in violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
According to the agency, SCPPL was not registered under FCRA for collecting money from abroad and the amount of nearly Rs 1.8 crore (2.9 lakh USD) was, therefore, received in violation of the Act as the organisation needed to seek prior approval from the Union Home Ministry.
Teesta and her husband, through their lawyer, had told the court that they were innocent and were falsely implicated. Her advocate Mihir Desai told the court that the only reason why the agency wanted to arrest them is to humiliate them for their work in Gujarat.
However, CBI in their reply, last Friday, had said that motive behind the transfer of foreign contribution to SCPPL reflected interference towards the internal security and activities of India.
“Such act of foreign donor would prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific and economic interest of the state and also affect the harmony between religious, social, linguistic or regional groups, castes or communities”, the CBI had said in its reply while opposing her plea.
The agency said the allegations against them (Setalvad and Anand) are serious in nature and it is proposed to unravel all the contours of the offence and the conspiracy during the investigation
PTI
On Monday, Teesta had recorded her statement before the CBI in connection with the case.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on the anticipatory bail plea of activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand till July 24 in connection with the case against her firm for allegedly receiving foreign donations in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).On Monday, Teesta had recorded her statement before the CBI in connection with the case. The investigating agency had earlier registered a case against Setalvad for allegedly receiving funds from foreign entities without prior permission from the government. <!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>
Social activist Teesta Setalvad’s lawyers have hit out at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for calling her a threat to national security to a Mumbai Court on Friday. The agency has been opposing the anticipatory bail of the activist in a case of alleged violations related to foreign funding of her NGOs.
PTI photo
Social activist Teesta Setalvad’s lawyers have hit out at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for calling her a threat to national security to a Mumbai Court on Friday. The agency has been opposing the anticipatory bail of the activist in a case of alleged violations related to foreign funding of her NGOs.Ms Setalvad’s lawyer, Vijay Hiremath told NDTV, “It’s extremely ridiculous that she is a threat to national security. The documents that were seized have been earlier given to other investigation agencies as well. Also no foreign currency was found in the house.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The CBI had registered a case against Setalvad in connection with alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) on July 8. CBI claims that Sabrang Communication and Publishing Private Limited received around US $2.9 lakh (Rs. 1.8 crore) in donations from overseas in violation of FCRA.Setalvad had approached the court for anticipatory bail on Friday, and was granted her protection from arrest till July 21, when it will pass an order on the bail application. Setalvad’s lawyers claim that there was no violation of FCRA guidelines.This donation was, therefore, a ‘serious violation’ of FCRA provisions which mandate funding from a foreign source to only those recipients who have FCRA registration, according to the home ministry, which had then ordered a CBI probe.Ms Setalvad, who has for years worked for victims of the 2002 riots in Gujarat, has alleged persecution by the ruling BJP. She has been accused by the Gujarat police of embezzling funds meant for a riots museum.According to rules, an organisation or a private firm can accept donations from overseas only after it has been registered under FCRA.
Mumbai: Social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband were on Friday granted interim protection from arrest after they filed anticipatory bail plea in a court in Mumbai in connection with a case of alleged violation of foreign funding norms by her publishing company.
CBI has alleged that Setalvad’s company received Rs 1.8 crore from abroad without approval of the Union Government.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP
Special CBI Judge Anis Khan reserved the order on the bail application till Tuesday and granted Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand interim protection from arrest.
The court directed the couple, who has termed the case as “false” and smacking of “political vendetta”, to appear before CBI every day till Tuesday.
The Central agency on 8 July registered a case against Setalvad and Anand alleging her firm Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Ltd (SCPPL) received around USD 2.9 lakh (Rs 1.8 crore) in donations from overseas in violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
According to the agency, SCPPL was not registered under FCRA for collecting money from abroad and the said amount was, therefore, received in violation of the Act under which the firm needed to seek prior approval from the Home Ministry.
Setalvad and her husband, through their lawyer, told the court they were innocent and have been falsely implicated. Her advocate Mihir Desai argued that the only reason why the agency wanted to arrest them is to humiliate them for their work in Gujarat.
However, CBI said motive behind the transfer of foreign contribution to SCPPL reflected “interference towards the internal security and activities of India”.
“Such act of foreign donor would prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific and economic interest of the state and also affect the harmony between religious, social, linguistic or regional groups, castes or communities”, the CBI said in their reply while opposing the application.
The reply further read that the allegations against the couple (Setalvad and Anand) are serious in nature and it is proposed to unravel all contours of the offence and the conspiracy during the investigation.
PTI
Several leading academicians, economists and rights activists termed the raid on premises linked to Setalvad as the “most shocking” instance of “misuse” of government machinery.
Members of the civil society on Wednesday said the CBI action against Teesta Setalvad was part of a campaign to “humiliate and persecute” the social activist.Several leading academicians, economists and rights activists termed the raid on premises linked to Setalvad as the “most shocking” instance of “misuse” of government machinery.”Since Setalvad and her colleagues are fully willing to cooperate with the CBI’s inquiry, the conclusion is inescapable that the CBI’s action is part of a campaign to humiliate and persecute them,” they said in a statement.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>They alleged that she was being hounded for her attempts to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat riots. “The obvious reason for this is the well-known fact that Setalvad has been in the forefront of the struggle to bring to justice the guilty of the 2002 Gujarat riots,” it said.The statement was released by NGO Sahmat on behalf of academicians, intellectuals, artists and those related to film making including Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Prabhat Patnaik, Arjun Dev, Vivan Sundaram, Arpana Caur, Kumar Shahani, Saeed Mirza, MK Raina and others.
The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case on July 8 against Teesta.
CBI raided the office and the residence of civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad in Mumbai, on Tuesday morning. The raid was reportedly conducted by 16 CBI officials.Teesta told news channel NDTV that she didn’t understand the rationale behind the raid despite offering full cooperation.The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case on July 8 against Teesta for allegedly receiving funds from foreign entities without prior permission from the government. The FIR also named Teesta’s husband Javed Anand, businessman Gulam Mohammed Peshimam and Sabrang Communications and Publishing. The CBI is currently examining Sabrang’s documents and bank account details.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Government had given temporary relief to Setalvad’s two NGOs, which allegedly violated Foreign Currency Regulation Act, by allowing her more time to reply to its showcause notices. Sabarang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), run by Teesta and her husband Javed Anand, were served the notices nearly a month ago following an on-site inspection of their records and books of accounts carried out by Home Ministry officials in April this year.Setalvad is known for championing the cause of 2002 post-Godhra riot victims in Gujarat.During the probe under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), Home Ministry officials found that Teesta and her husband were running a magazine “Communalism Combat” as co-editors as well as printer and publisher of their company Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Ltd (SCPPL) and allegedly received foreign contribution. Under FCRA, no foreign contribution shall be accepted by any correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner, printer or publisher of a registered newspaper.CJP, which has been fighting cases for victims of 2002 Gujarat riots, had received a total foreign contribution of around Rs 1.18 crore from 2008-09 to 2013-14. According to the notice, more than 80% or nearly Rs 95 lakh was spent for legal aid. While the entity was registered for ‘Educational and Economic’ purposes, it received foreign contribution for activities such as ‘Legal Aid’ which is covered under purpose ‘Social’. Hence, it violated FCRA rules, they contended.With agency inputs.
Social activist Teesta Setalvad on Tuesday filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking setting aside of a complaint against her for uploading allegedly objectionable picture of Hindu deities on Twitter.
Social activist Teesta Setalvad on Tuesday filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking setting aside of a complaint against her for uploading allegedly objectionable picture of Hindu deities on Twitter.A first information report, based on the complaint of VHP activist Raju Patel, was filed against Setalvad at Ghatlodia police station here last August. The petition would be heard by Justice Mohinder Pal on July 9.Setalvad had twitted a photoshopped picture of ISIS terrorists with the slain American journalist James Foley with a religious image in the backdrop. Later she removed it.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The FIR charges her with Indian Penal Code sections 153(a) (promoting enmity between religious groups) and 205(a) (outraging religious feelings) with sections of Information Technology Act.Setalvad, known for championing the cause of 2002 post-Godhra riot victims in Gujarat, had recently sought more time from a local court to re-deposit her passport because she wanted to visit Brazil to attend a conference. But the plea was rejected. She has moved the HC over this issue too.Her passport was deposited with the court when she obtained pre-arrest bail in the present case. The High Court, meanwhile, has also issued notices to the state government, crime branch of police and two banks with regard to Setalvad’s plea for condonation of delay in filing appeal in the matter of attachment of her bank accounts.It would be heard by Justice Mohinder Pal on July 27. Setalvad had last month moved the HC seeking to de-freeze her bank accounts. The accounts were attached in a case in which she is accused of collecting Rs 1.51 crore for a museum for Gulberg Housing Society riot victims but misusing the money.The crime branch of police has attached the accounts of Setalvad, her husband Javed Anand and two of their NGOs. A metropolitan court had in November last year rejected the plea to de-freeze the accounts. Setalvad moved the HC but the appeal was filed 90 days after the order, so she is seeking condonation of delay.
Being a private limited company not having FCRA registration, the SCPPL was not entitled to receive foreign funds and action under section 43 of the FCR Act can be initiated against it, Union home ministry sources said.
Union home ministry may initiate a CBI probe against Teesta Setalvad-owned company Sabrang Communications and Publishing Private Limited (SCPPL) for receiving foreign funds from Ford foundation.Being a private limited company not having FCRA registration, the SCPPL was not entitled to receive foreign funds and action under section 43 of the FCR Act can be initiated against it, Union home ministry sources said.According to section 43 of the FCRA, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any offence punishable under this Act may also be investigated into by such authority as the Central Government may specify in this behalf.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A notification issued in 2011 extends powers of section 43 by allowing investigation by the CBI with regard to offences that involve a prima-facie violation of the provisions of the FCR Act, 2010 involving receipt of foreign contribution of an amount of one crore rupees or equivalent or above and in any other case which may be specifically entrusted to the CBI by the Central government under the said Act.The sources claimed the home ministry during its inspection of the company’s accounts found that an amount of Rs 50 lakh was allegedly transferred to it by Setalvad’s NGO Sabrang Trust which also was in violation of FCRA norms.However, the Union home ministry, does not find Ford Foundation culpable for giving funds to the SCPPL and is ready to remove its name from the prior permission category list once the Foundation fulfills the FCRA criteria.The Ford Foundation, according to home ministry sources, was allowed to set up its office on the request of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and was especially giving permission by the department of economic affairs (DEA) to grant funds in various fields.”Its (Ford Foundation) existence precedes FCRA and it was functioning as per the rules of DEA. However, as the FCRA registration is mandatory for NGOs and foreign donor, it should also adhere to the FCRA. Once it does, in all likelihood it would be removed from the prior permission category,” said sources.The trigger to initiate CBI probe against SCPPL lies in the Gujarat government representation on “Embezzlement of fund by Teesta Setalvad and others” to Home Ministry that had also accused Ford Foundation for interfering in the Country’s internal affairs.The letter had raised questions on SCPPL, a private company ‘limited by shares’, being given grant of $2, 90,000 by Ford Foundation.Grant of $2,90,000 to SCPPL covers $1,68,204 in salaries for the staff of the company and $47,546 for its office expenses. Thus about 75% of the grant is meant for running the company’s office and not for realizing any clear objective, said Gujarat government’s letter.”During the course of investigation it is revealed that Sabrang Trust and Sabrang Communication & Publishing Pvt Ltd (SCPPL) has received a total grant of $ 5,40,000 from Ford Foundation, a US NGO having office at 55 Lodhi estate. It is revealed during the course of investigation that Ford Foundation, established with the stated goal of promoting communal harmony, democratic principles and social justice has been indulging in covert activities of promoting interests that are completely contradictory to the said goals,” the Gujarat government letter said.
The paranoia of foreign hands that began with the offloading of Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai and blocking funds to the NGO has now reached an organisation that is almost as old as Independent India and whose imprint is indelible on many national programmes and institutions.
On Thursday, when the Modi government put the Ford Foundation on a watch list primarily because it funded human rights activist Teesta Setalvad’s NGO fighting for the rights of Gujarat riot-victims, and asked the Reserve Bank of India not to pass on foreign funds to the organisation without its clearance, it has sent out a strong message that it doesn’t trust anybody other than those who parrot its views.
The original author of this paranoia was nobody but former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was extremely wary of NGOs that she thought had been puppeteered by foreign agencies. In fact, Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA), the tool that controls the flow of overseas funds to NGOs in India, was established by her during emergency. In 1984, when it was further tightened, funding to 142 organisations were blocked. The Ministry of Home Affairs currently has several NGOs on its watch list and the “iconic” Ford Foundation is the latest.
also see
Ford Foundation
It’s not the money that matters. In its report on its 50th anniversary in India in 2002, Ford Foundation said that it had spent $500 million for various projects in the country. That was really short change, but the impact was huge. What’s probably disconcerting for the present government are the causes Ford supports such as democratic governance, which include increasing political participation, civil society activism and transparency; human rights which includes the rights of minorities, marginalised communities, Dalits and adivasis; freedom of expression; sexuality, LGBT rights and women’s rights among others. The central themes of its programmes are rights, equality and transparency which are ideas that challenge authoritative governments.
Ford’s grant-making programmes, which include both organisations and individuals, therefore can be a problem for the government because if it supports the welfare of Dalits and adivasis, the Home Ministry might view it as support to Maoists (in fact, Nobel winner MSF was recently accused of supporting Maoists because it worked among tribal communities who are otherwise unreached by government systems). Similarly, if it supports minority rights, as perhaps they have done by funding Teesta’s NGO, it can be seen as being partial to Muslims and any support to freedom of expression may be interpreted as fostering internal trouble.
By targeting the Ford Foundation, the Modi government has also made a clear political statement that it doesn’t care for the legacy of the organisation while facing dissent. Ford is no ordinary NGO. It was Nehru’s favourite and had played an important role in his vision of India by co-authoring India’s agricultural revolution and family planning programme, capacity strengthening of the erstwhile Planning Commission, establishment of IIMs and institutions such as the National Institute of Design (NID) in Ahmedabad, IRMA in Anand and the Institute of Economic Growth (IEG) in Delhi. In fact, in the initial years, it worked with the government and had a team of nearly 100 overseas experts at its Lodhi Road office in Delhi. What’s more interesting is that bulk of the UN in India now operates from the Foundation’s building. Perhaps Ford was the face of overseas development assistance in India’s initial years after independence.
It was in the 1970s, the Foundation shifted its focus to civil society organisations and individuals. Many celebrated Indian NGOs such as SEWA and DISHA and public policy institutions such as
National Centre for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) owe its genesis to the Foundation.
The influence of Ford in public policy is incontestable and probably irreversible. Since it started as early as India’s independence and had the complete trust of Nehru, its ideas had been wired into India’s social and economic development processes. However, what’s less known is its influence on civil society action and politics. Many of India’s prominent civil society leaders, who later successfully dabbled in politics had been funded by Ford – Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia (through their NGO Kabeer) and Yogendra Yadav (through ICSSR of JNU). If one considers the Rockefeller-Ford umbrella, it has more interesting names such as Kiran Bedi and Anna Hazare. The Magsasay award, considered to be the Asian Nobel prize, had been established by Rockefeller Foundation and queerly several Ford grantees have been honoured by this award. They are all active in various spheres of civil society engagement, politics and public policy. In fact, Arvind Kejriwal is a success story of Ford’s grant making programme in India.
Interestingly, in its move against Ford, Modi government and some of his severe critics are on the same side – the Left, and public intellectuals such as Arundhati Roy. For both, Foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller represent the capitalist interests of America and even the CIA.
Modi government seems to be unsparing when it comes to handling dissent. It’s noteworthy that besides Teesta, Ford has also supported one of his fiercest critics, Mallika Sarabhai. Throttling funds is an easy option to suppress opposition as many autocratic governments have attempted time and again. In 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai highlighted three general principles to protect civil space. The ability to seek, receive and spend money is one of them.
Ironically, when Indira Gandhi clamped down on NGOs, what she targeted was Gandhian organisations because she thought they were out to destabilise her. In Modi’s regime, the targets seem to be human rights organisations. With increasing suspicion of civil society organisations and fund flows, Modi’s India can be proud that it’s in the august company of (Rajapakse’s) Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Hungary, Egypt, Sudan, Russia and Venezuela.
Back in 1999, during the Lok Sabha elections, when it was apparent that the BJP may again win elections to be the single largest party and form the government, Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand ran an aggressive ad campaign against the party. This campaign was run through Communalism Combat – a periodic magazine published by Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Here are some excerpts from an interview that Teesta and Anand gave (an archive link can be read here):
“With that (asking people to vote for a “secular democracy” to combat increasing communalism) in mind, we approached political parties that are opposed to the BJP ideology“
“For the first time large sections of what had been the third front were moving in droves to the BJP. This was paralleled by the ominous and dangerous attempt of the BJP trying to communalise the armed forces post-Kargil as they’d done with the police. Sending rakhis to soldiers, draping bodies of martyrs in saffron flags.“
“Since the BJP was identified as the main enemy we suggested ways for other parties to work out their strategies. And the third concept was the ad campaign.“
In response to a question whether Communalism Combat saw itself as a political unit, the two replied, “What’s the purpose of any publication? The media doesn’t function in a vacuum. It has a political role. Communalism itself is a political issue […] As we see it, the threat to Indian democracy is from the Sangh Parivar, not from minority communalism.“
In response to a question on whether Communalism Combat received foreign funding, Teesta and Anand categorically expressed their awareness about the fact that FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulation Act) didn’t allow a newspaper or publication to receive foreign funding.
Fast forward to 2006. Ford Foundation approved a grant of $200,000 to Sabrang Communications to “address communalism and caste-based discrimination in India through active research, web-based information dissemination, development of civil society network and media strategies”. The 2006 annual report of Ford Foundation can be accessed here.
Sure, the political campaign Sabrang Communications undertook in 1999 presumably didn’t continue in 2006, at least in such direct terms, when Ford Foundation gave it funds. However, the magazine Communalism Combat was still its primary activity. Why, one wonders, were Ford Foundation funds sought by a publishing company – something that an entity running a magazine cannot do under FCRA laws – is unclear.
The Gujarat Government wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) earlier this month enlisting this violation as well as other charges such as ambivalent spending of Ford Foundation funds by the recipient trust (it had remitted $250,000 to Sabrang Trust providing “tie-off support to strengthen its conflict resolution and peace-building activities in Gujarat & Maharashtra”), using funds to analyse call records pertaining to the post-Godhra riots in 2002 and engaging in “activities bordering, if not outrightly, political”.
also see
Moreover, given that Teesta and Anand have been accused of treating funds raised for Gulbarg Society victims in a fungible manner (i.e., using funds meant for welfare for their personal use), the Gujarat government raised a valid concern in asking MHA to also investigate whether Ford Foundation funds were used to fund legal expenses for the 2002 riot cases.
In response to this request from the state government, as well as other instances of Ford Foundation’s funding which have generated controversy, the MHA issued a notice to the RBI asking it to instruct all banks to ensure that any fund flow from Ford Foundation to any person or NGO is brought to the MHA’s notice so that funds are credited into the accounts of the recipient only after MHA clearance.
It is useful to note that, unlike the case of Greenpeace, this decision does not suspend Ford Foundation’s certificate nor blocks its funding. It only adds a layer of procedure in terms of prior approval before Ford Foundation funds reach the intended recipient.
This decision is, therefore, no big deal and the outrage over it is exaggerated. In fact, this Economic Times report from a week ago cites the Ford Foundation spokesperson as stating that the process of government approvals of its grants “has been in place for decades” and it is “not unusual for these thoughtful approvals to take some time”.
Moreover, this action in no way suggests, at least for now, that the MHA sees Ford Foundation as an NGO involved in activities detrimental to India’s interest. If that were the case and MHA had evidence, it would have taken a harsher step like it has in the case of Greenpeace.
In fact, it seems clear that the MHA’s spotlight, at least for now, is more on its recipients. This is evident from the language of the notice. Paragraph 2 of the notice states that it has been decided to keep a watch “on all the activities funded by Ford Foundation” and not Ford Foundation per se. The notice states its purpose in the very beginning that it wants to regulate the receipt of foreign funds so that the same are utilised for bonafide welfare activities without any adverse effect on national interest and security.
It is entirely conceivable that, just like donors who contributed to the welfare of Gulbarg Society victims may not have known where and how the funds would be utilised, Ford Foundation may not have been entirely aware of, or interfered with, how Teesta and Anand planned to use its funds.
Indeed, whether that is lack of due diligence, or deliberate intention on the part of Ford Foundation (or somewhere in between) is a subject matter for investigation which the MHA has been asked to do by the Gujarat government.
For now, it is vital to note that Ford Foundation has not remitted any money to Teesta or her organisations after the donations in 2006 and 2009. The foundation’s India head is quoted in an Indian Express report as stating that it does not currently have any relationship with Sabrang or its principals. And, given the cloud of controversies surrounding Teesta, Ford Foundation may have closed its doors to her for good.
The outrage over MHA’s decision is, therefore, premature. Indeed, the MHA investigation may necessitate more measures in future. However, as of now, the ministry’s step seems motivated more by the questionable activities and use of funds by some of the recipients of Ford Foundation – something that is legitimate and necessary.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat government has sought a probe into the role of activist Teesta Setalvad’s NGO alleging that it misused funds received from a foreign donor to create ‘communal disharmony’.
“We have written a letter to Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh seeking probe into the role of Setalvad’s NGO (Sabrang Trust) after we found out funds given to the NGO were misused,” Gujarat Minister of State for Home Rajnikant Patel told PTI.
Teesta Setalvad in a file photo. AFP
The Gujarat government and Setalvad are already embroiled in legal battles. While she has filed several cases against the state government functionaries including the former Chief Minister Narendra Modi regarding the 2002 riots, the state police has filed a case of embezzlement of funds against her.
“During the investigation of Gulberg Society museum funds embezzlement case, these things came to light,” Patel said.
“We learnt that the funds which they received, especially from the (US-based) Ford Foundation, were actually used for disturbing the communal harmony here and carrying out anti-national propaganda against India in foreign countries,” he claimed.
“According to the information given by Ford Foundation (to state police), we came to know that she had used the funds to carry out a campaign against the Gujarat government and also against the country,” he said.
“We wrote to the government of India last month seeking probe of this NGO’s role and necessary action against it… they (the Centre) can take action such as cancelling its grants or de-listing the NGO,” said Patel.
The Ford Foundation had given more than USD five lakh to Setalvad’s NGO, he added.
ACP KN Patel, investigating officer in the Gulberg Society funds misuse case, said police had submitted a report to the state government on this issue.
Setalvad, her husband Javed Anand, slain Congress MP Ehsan Jafri’s son Tanvir, and two residents of the Gulberg society Firoz Gulzar and Salim Sandhi are facing a case of embezzlement of Rs 1.51 crore.
It has been alleged by some residents of Gulbarg society here — site of a major massacre during the 2002 riots in which Jafri and 68 others were killed — that Setalvad and others usurped the money collected for setting up a riots museum.
Setalvad’s anticipatory bail plea in this case is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The Gujarat High Court had rejected her pre-arrest bail plea.
PTI
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat Assembly’s budget session ended in Ahmedabad on Tuesday but findings of the ‘2002 riot probe panel’ were not tabled, though it was submitted four months ago.
The Nanavati panel report on the 2002 Gujarat riots was not tabled before the Gujarat assembly. AFP
The 2002 riots, in which more than 1,000 people were killed, was probed for around 14 years by a retired Supreme court judge GT Nanavati and accordingly the final report was submitted to Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel in November 2014.
Generally, such inquiry panel reports are presented in the assembly session, once they are submitted to the government.
Repeated calls made by PTI to Gujarat government spokesperson and minister Nitin Patel to comment on the issue evoked no response.
“This commission was formed to hide the negligence of the Gujarat state government at the time of riots which took lives of more than 1,000 people. They did not place it before assembly today as a part of their delay tactics so that the issue will become a non-issue, thus saving themselves from political anger,” Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee spokesperson Manish Doshi told PTI.
“Forming fact-finding commissions was nothing but a face-saving exercise of the Gujarat government. Whether it was the Nanavati probe panel to find out the truth of the 2002 riots or the Justice Sugnya Bhatt commission to probe the alleged snooping case, there were all nothing but eye wash,” Doshi said.
In 2008, the Nanavati inquiry panel had submitted one part of its finding with regard to the Godhra train burning incident, in which it had concluded that the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express near Godhra railway station was a “planned conspiracy”.
also see
The panel was constituted by the Gujarat state government on 3 March, 2002, under the Commission of Inquiry Act comprising Justice KG Shah, in the wake of Godhra train carnage on 27 February, 2002 and the subsequent communal riots across the state.
Initially, the panel’s Terms of Reference (TOR) were to inquire into the facts, circumstances and course of events which led to the burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express.
In May 2002, the Gujarat state government appointed retired Supreme Court Justice GT Nanavati as the chairman of the commission and its TOR were further amended in June 2002 as per which it was also asked to inquire incidents of violence which took place after the Godhra incident.
The commission was given 24 extensions of around six months each, to complete its investigations.
The commission had probed the roles of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi, as per its TOR, his cabinet colleagues of that time, senior government and police officers, along with functionaries of other right-wing organisations during the 2002 riots period.
PTI
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the interim bail granted to advocate-activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, while referring to a larger bench the question of personal liberty and requirement of effective investigation, including custodial interrogation.
Social activist Teesta Setalvad. AFP
The bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said the “question that arises for consideration is whether liberty on the one hand, and fair and effective investigation on the other make out a case for extending the benefit (of anticipatory bail) under Section 438 CrPC.”
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for anticipatory bail to an alleged accused apprehending arrest.
The court said the main issue was whether Setalvad and her husband should be taken into custody for interrogation by benumbing and comatosing their liberty by asking them to face custodial interrogation.
Referring the matter to a larger bench, the court said: “As we are referring the matter to a larger bench, the interim order passed on February 19, 2015, shall remain in force till the larger bench takes up the matter.”
Pointing to the “value of liberty, the concept of regulated freedom, the societal restriction, the supremacy of the law, the concept of anticipatory bail”, the court referred to a claim by Gujarat Police that Setalvad and her husband were not cooperating in the investigation and were contesting it. The court said, “We think it appropriate that the matter should be heard by a larger bench.”
Setalvad has been accused of misuse of funds collected by NGO Sabrang Trust for setting up a museum in Gulberg Society that witnessed carnage during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The apex court on February 19 restrained Gujarat Police from arresting the activist and her husband.
A man named Ferozkhan Saeedkhan Pathan has filed a complaint with Gujarat Police alleging that Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace, managed by trustees Setalvad and her husband, had collected funds to set up a museum at Gulberg Society and had asked the residents not to sell their property in the society with the assurance that the trustees would arrange funds for the same.
The complainant alleged that they neither built the museum nor spent the amount for the benefit of the members of the society, nor did they fulfil the assurance made to the victims regarding the sale of their properties but expended on themselves.
The offences were registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 120B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 72(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, providing for penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy.
IANS
New Delhi: The HRD Ministry has set up a committee to probe alleged misappropriation of funds received under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan by an NGO run by activist Teesta Setalvad, who is facing heat along with her husband in a separate case of embezzlement.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP
The three-member committee is to be headed by Supreme Court lawyer Abhijit Bhattacharjee and comprise Gujarat Central University Vice Chancellor SA Bari and senior HR Ministry official Gaya Prasad as its members.
The panel will look into allegations against the NGO Sabrang Trust based on a complaint received by the ministry about “mis-utilisation” of funds by it, officials in the HRD Ministry said, confirming the setting up of the committee.
The two members of the committee, however, said they were yet to receive any communication in this regard.
Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand are also involved in the Gulbarg society embezzlement case.
Supreme Court recently directed Gujarat Police not to arrest the duo in the case while asking them to cooperate in the probe.
also see
The case pertains to funds for a museum in Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society, which was devastated in the 2002 riots.
Meanwhile, sources in the ministry said that Setalvad could also be dropped from the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), which is being reconstituted after NDA government came to power.
CABE is the highest decision-making body on education in the country.
PTI
Jump to original: Can’t arrest Teesta and her husband, says SC: Here’s all you need to know about Setalvad case
Read this article: Teesta and husband won’t be arrested, says SC: All you need to know about the embezzlement case
Activist lawyer Indira Jaising today protested against the “victimisation” of social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband in alleged fund embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat police by terming it as a case of “political vendetta”.
Activist lawyer Indira Jaising today protested against the “victimisation” of social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband in alleged fund embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat police by terming it as a case of “political vendetta”.Jaising, along with a group of eminent people including scribes and academicians, came out in support of the duo, who have been working for the riots victims of 2002, and said there has been a “pattern” in such type of FIRs and cops were insisting on a custodial interrogation to “humiliate” them.A statement issued by Jaising and others in support of the activists said, “while the Narendra Modi-led government has launched a fresh investigation in the 1984 riots, the persisting spirit of vendetta against an effort to enforce legal and moral accountability for the Gujarat riots was shocking”.Setalvad and her husband were on February 13 granted protection from arrest for six days by the Supreme Court which will hear their plea for anticipatory bail on February 19.However, the apex court had noted that the allegations against them were “grave” and it was also not a case of quashing the FIR.
Jaising, who was not arguing the matter was present in the courtroom and had made certain comments to the dislike of the apex court.The case relates to alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society that was devastated in the 2002 riots.Jaising, who was Additional Solicitor General in the previous UPA government, said the victimisation against them started from 2010.”Every time she gets a favourable order from the court, there is hyperactivity on the part of Gujarat police to lodge an FIR,” the former ASG said at a press conference here.
Jaising said, “The issue is why they want to make an arrest and why was the Gujarat police at her doorsteps within minutes of the judgement being delivered? It’s a big question mark.”She was referring to the February 12 verdict of the Bombay High Court by which their anticipatory bail plea was rejected.Journalist and National Integration Council member, John Dayal, alleged that the FIR against her follows a “certain pattern” and the police was insisting on a custodial interrogation of the activists to humiliate them.When questioned if she would intend to get the very prosecution quashed by Supreme Court citing frivolous and criminal intent, Jaising said Setalvad only wanted to make it clear that she was not running away from any investigation.
“She is saying you can investigate whatever you want because I am very clear about my accounts,” she elaborated.The group, which came in support of the activist couple, also issued a statement raising “serious doubts about the bona fide of the complainants” in the case.The Supreme Court on Friday had passed an order protecting Setalvad and her husband from arrest till February 19 in connection with a fund embezzlement case, while noting that allegations against them were “grave”.
The Gujarat Police’s overt enthusiasm to arrest Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand no sooner than the state high court rejected their plea for anticipatory bail in a curious “embezzlement” case didn’t raise any eyebrows, but justified the perception that the BJP government was on a hot pursuit of the activist.
Teesta Setalvad. AFP.
The BJP leaders and their proxies found nothing extraordinary in the action of Gujarat Police, which landed up at the doorstep of Setalvad in Mumbai in no time, because, according to them, the police was at liberty to arrest the accused when the courts refuse anticipatory bail. Some would even say that the police was duty-bound to pursue the case.
But what was unsaid was the deviousness in the police’s insistence of custodial interrogation of the couple for alleged diversion of funds collected by her NGO to convert Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad, where 69 people were killed in the 2002 riots, into a museum. The charge was that the couple had transferred Rs 14.2 lakhs from the NGO’s account to clear their credit card bills and had transferred large sums of money to their personal accounts. The police said that the expenses included payments for wine and groceries.
Setalvad had clarified that credit card expenses that the NGO paid for were not personal, but official such as travel. It’s not unusual for people to use personal credit card for official purposes and then get the official expenses reimbursed. But by conflating the personal (wine, groceries, books etc.) and official, the police tried to besmirch their reputation and make out a case. Similarly, additional money used from the account was for salaries and legal expenses.
The police case was based on a complaint by 12 members of the Gulbarg Housing Society, which curiously refused to take note of the submission by the secretary and chairman of the Society that the case was false. The latter had also informed the police that the complainants had misused office stationery.
That despite an official clarification from the Gulbarg Society, the police went ahead with the case looked clearly motivated. And now their overzealousness in seeking custodial interrogation of the couple nails their intent.
One cannot clearly miss the police targeting Setalvad, but what makes one more worried about their motive is their track record in foisting spurious cases against her. In 2012, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the state for initiating a probe for “illegal exhumation” of the 2002 riot victims. “This is a hundred percent spurious case to victimise the petitioner (Setalvad),” said the court. “This type of case does no credit to the state of Gujarat in any way,” it further said.
A year later, the police came up with the embezzlement case, despite the official representatives of the Gulbarg Society affirming that they had no complaint, and wanted to arrest Setalvad.
also see
The police’s dogged pursuit brings us to the question of who Setalvad is. She is an exceptional character in India’s human rights campaigns – she is the principal reason for getting justice, although partial, to the victims of the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. For the first time in India, 117 perpetrators of communal violence, including a minister in the then Modi state cabinet, had been convicted. Had it not been for her and other rights activists, the victims would been gagged to submission. She is also the biggest obstacle to Modi’s image management efforts.
Obviously, Setalvad is a marked person because she is refusing to give up, along with Zakia Jafri, the complainant in the Gulbarg Society massacre case, against the Gujarat state government and the then chief minister Narendra Modi although a Special Investigation Team had found no prosecutable evidence against him. Setalvad and her supporters, point to the dissenting notes by the Supreme Court appointed amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, who had said that the evidence against Modi was significant.
Setalvad may be particularly unsparing of Modi, as some allege, but that doesn’t allow for continuous police harassment. The victimisation of Setalvad is too evident to ignore. And it hadn’t started yesterday. In 2005, she was accused of pressuring Zaheera Sheikh in the Best Bakery Case to given evidence against the government. The SC had later absolved Setalvad and sent Zaheera Sheikh to jail for a year. “This is a classic example of a case where evidence were tampered with and witnesses won over,” the court had then said.
This record of victimisation against Setalvad for the simple reason that she is standing up for her fellow citizens’ battle for justice is a warning to human rights activists and a reminder of the abominable misuse of power by the state.