Teesta Setalvad's lawyer seeks bail, points lack of prima facie case, violation of procedure by ATS
Gujarat: In a bail hearing at the Gujarat High Court, Teesta Setalvad's lawyer presented arguments emphasizing the lack of a prima facie case and the violation of legal procedures. Setalvad, a renowned human rights activist, is seeking permanent bail in a case accusing her of submitting false evidence.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore, representing Setalvad, meticulously discussed each charge mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and expounded upon the definitions of the offenses invoked against his client under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thakore underscored that none of the charges were substantiated against Setalvad, as the alleged forged or false affidavits were actually filed before the Supreme Court and not the police. These affidavits were submitted in a transfer petition by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) four years prior to the complaint filed by Zakia Jafri in 2006. Thakore argued that, as per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), no proceedings can be initiated against Setalvad without a complaint from the court.
Furthermore, Thakore highlighted that the statements recorded by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the affidavits filed before the SIT were not referred to in Jafri's 2006 complaint or the subsequent protest petition. These affidavits were not utilized in Jafri's special leave petition before the Supreme Court; they were solely submitted to support the NHRC's transfer petition, which predated Jafri's complaint.
Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and anr vs Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, Thakore emphasized that proceedings can only be initiated through a complaint filed by a competent court, as specified in Section 195 and Section 340 of the CrPC. He pointed out that the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) had violated this procedure by arresting Setalvad without a warrant and forcefully taking her to Ahmedabad, where she was subsequently remanded to police custody.
Regarding the specific charges invoked against Setalvad, Thakore argued that sections 467, 469, and 471 of the IPC would only be applicable if it were alleged that Setalvad had influenced Zakia Jafri to file the complaint in 2006. However, the complaint was filed by Jafri herself, not Setalvad. Thakore further alleged that these charges were invoked against his client solely to avoid the application of Section 195 of the CrPC, as Setalvad had only signed a single document—the petition submitted to the Supreme Court.
Thakore contended that for sections 194 and 211 of the IPC to apply, a complaint from the Supreme Court would be necessary, which was not the case. Thus, he argued that no prima facie case was made against Setalvad.
Additionally, Thakore referred to relevant provisions in the CrPC, specifically Sections 437 and 439, to assert why bail should be granted in this instance.
To support his plea for a humanitarian approach toward Setalvad's bail, Thakore cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2021; decided on July 11, 2022). The court had highlighted the need for a humane approach in cases where the accused is a senior citizen and there is no danger of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
While Teesta Setalvad has presented her case seeking bail, the state is currently in the process of making its submissions. The court will carefully consider the arguments put forth by both parties before reaching a decision on her bail application. The outcome of this hearing will have significant implications for Setalvad and the ongoing legal proceedings.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
