When people compare India and China, they say, “China may be easier to do business in, but when it comes to redressal, India has an independent judiciary.” This has been said so often that it has become a truism. What is not said is that justice in our country too often depends on the judge that you get, not simply on the merits of your case.
This has been glaringly brought out in the case against Teesta Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand. Full disclosure here: I have been a trustee of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) from its inception in 2002, and I am now its resident. But this has given me full knowledge from day one to the present how the machinery of the state can be used to harass a person who is “inconvenient” to it.
The facts speak for themselves. The CJP drew its lessons from what happened — or didn’t happen — in 1984. The anti-Sikh violence after Indira Gandhi’s assassination killed hundreds of innocent Sikhs only because they happened to be Sikhs. Yet no one has been jailed, let alone tried for murder. That’s because Congress workers were involved, and the Congress formed the government. It was far too late for us to do anything about that, but we were determined that a repeat shouldn’t happen.
It’s important to know that the latest case, the complaint of misappropriation of trust funds was filed by a “resident” of the Gulberg Society, and not by a trustee or a donor as you would normally expect. The origins of this lie in the fact that at one time it was proposed to build a memorial in the Gulberg Society. Funds were collected by donations for the purpose, but they were so meagre that it was decided that no meaningful memorial could be built. Donors were informed. They were asked if they would like the money returned, or if the funds could be used in the general efforts of CJP to fight for justice. None of the donors wanted their money back.
The charges about embezzlement also accuse Teesta and Javed of using trust funds for personal use. This stems from the fact that both had only one credit card each, which they used for trust-related work as well as personal expenses. However, they paid for the latter from their personal accounts as they should, while trust-related expenses were reimbursed after taking formal approval of a finance subcommittee. There is no confusion about these payments because everything is on paper and has been audited by a reputable chartered accounting company. Anyone willing to spend time going through the records would not have the slightest doubt that everything was above board. The question is this: why bother to spend time, when you can shout “embezzlement” from the rooftops and besmirch a reputation?
That’s exactly what the Gujarat police did. Not just that but they asked for voluminous records (apparently, the receipts add up to 11,000 in number), and got an order to freeze the bank accounts of the trust as well as the personal accounts of Setalvad and Anand. The accounts have now been frozen for a year. Not satisfied with that, the police asked for the arrest of the two, and a Gujarat HC judge not only dismissed the couple’s application for anticipatory bail, but asked the police to subject them to “custodial interrogation.” I am now quoting from a recent article by Prashant Bhushan, the SC advocate and AAP’s national executive member: “The court also made sweeping allegations against her Teesta by relying only on allegations of the Gujarat police and completely ignoring her explanations.”
Amazingly, the Gujarat police reached Setalvad and Anand’s residence in Juhu from Ahmedabad within 20 minutes of the order denying them bail! Fortunately, a SC bench on the same day stayed the order for arrest till further hearing on February 19. On the 18th, the CJI in an unprecedented move, changed the two-judge bench. No reason was given.
Consider the decision of the Gujarat HC judge. Let us assume that Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand had indeed embezzled funds. How was that to be proved? Commonsense tells you that this would be through a scrutiny of the accounts. Is the police, through custodial interrogation, in a position to do that? Instead, shouldn’t the court have asked the Institute of Chartered Accountants to nominate a CA firm to go through the evidence and prepare a report? But justice, as I said earlier, depends not so much on the merits of your case…
The writer is a senior journalist
