Maharashta, India: A Mumbai High Court today rejected the anticipatory bail plea moved by human rights activists Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand. Duo had moved to the court seeking a relief against the likely arrest after the CBI raid their house and office is on July 14.
Addressing media persons after the court hearing Teesta said: “I am shocked and aggrieved. My sympathisers believe that it’s too intermediate and possibly eliminate ask by power”shocked.
During the court hearing CBI prosecutor opposed their bail plea on the ground that they were booked in a serious crime with required custodial interrogation.
CBI has alleged that Tessta and her husband diverted certain foreign funding to their NGO for their personal gain.
Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace & Gujarat Muslim Genocide 2002:
Teesta Setalvad is an Indian civil rights activist and journalist. She is the secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an organisation formed for fighting for justice for the victims of genocidal violence in the state of Gujarat in 2002. CJP is a co-petitioner seeking criminal trial of Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and the current Prime minister of India and 62 other politicians and government officials for complicity in the Gujarat violence of 2002 and whose names did not figure in any of the FIRs /charge sheets that formed the subject matter of the various Session Trials regarding the riots at that point of time.
Teesta’s response on CBI raids and the allegations of diverting fundings:
A press release issued by Teesta Setalvad on July 14, when the CBI was conducting raids in her house and office, reads as follows:
“As I write this, the search is still not concluded. It is shocking that while over a dozen members of the CBI are still in our premises conducting the search, the CBI’s Delhi spokesperson is misleading the public and our vast supporters by a series of misinformations and official tweets. In our view, and we repeat, no laws have been broken by us. This is a continuation of the persecution and witchhunt first launched by the Gujarat police in 2014 then under the dispensation that rules Delhi. The CBI has taken the same documents that we had voluntarily, on inspection, given the MHA (FCRA dept). Over 25,000 pages of documentary evidence has been given to the Gujarat Police. When they could not succeed with the bizarre and desperate attempts to gain custody (February 2015), it was the Gujarat Government’s Home Department that wrote to the MHA and the current round of the persecutions began.
Its shameful political vendetta. The Zakia Jafri case begins its final hearings on July 27 2015. The Naroda PAtoiya appeals (Kodnani and Bajrangi) are being heard in the Gujarat High Court tomorrow. This is nothing but a bid to subvert the cause of public justice and ensure that no justice happens in these cases.
We had written to the CBI offering full cooperation. The so called offences relate to documentary evidence. This search is nothing but an attempt to intimidate and humiliate. India should be ashamed that when scams like Vyapam are happening, over 50 persons dying, witnesses in Asaram Bapu case are dying, the CBI is not appealing in critical cases related to crimes by politicians The agency is being unleashed on human rights defenders standing up for the rights of Survivors of Mass Violence. It is worse than the British Raj. Pathetic.
I repeat Sabrang Communications has broken no law(s). One: Section 3 of FCRA, 2010 bars certain ‘persons’ (political parties and its office bearers, government servants and those associated with registered newspapers and those involved in the production and broadcast of news) from receiving foreign donations. However, the very next section, Section 4 which is sutitled ‘Persons to whom section 3 shall not apply‘ states: “Nothing contained in section 3 shall apply to the acceptance, by any person specified 3 in that section, of any foreign contribution where such contribution is accepted by him, subject to the provisions of section 10- (a) by way of salary, wages or other remuneration due to him or to any group of persons working under him, from any foreign source or by way of payment in the ordinary course of business transacted in India by such foreign source;”
Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd Co. which published the monthly ‘Communalism Combat’ signed a Consultancy Agreement with Ford Foundation in 2004 and 2006 “to address the issues of caste and communalism” through a clearly defined set of activities which had nothing whatsoever to do with Communalism Combat or remuneration to Javed Anand or Teesta Setalvad towards discharging editorial/managerial functions. The Consultancy was signed by Sabrang Communications only after advice from eminent legal counsel that such an agreement was covered under the exclusion stipulated under Section 4 of the Act and therefore the consultancy fees (not grant or donation) received would not be in violation of FCRA 2010. Ford Foundation in fact deducted TDS with every installment of consultancy fees it paid to Sabrang Communications. The activities undertaken and the expenses incurred were in accordance with the agreement. Activities and Financial Reports were submitted annual to the satisfaction of Ford Foundation.
Two, Sabrang has kept records and provided copies of the same to the FCRA during the inspection visit of FCRA team in Mumbai on June 9 and 10, 2015, Additional documents as required were also posted to FCRA department.
Three: Deliberately or otherwise, the FCRA team is confusing the well- known lobbying that is part of the political process in the USA with advocacy initiatives whereby NGOs, civil society activists engage with the government of the day to draw their attention towards the legitimate issues of women, children, dalits, religious or linguistic or sexual minorities, differently-abled persons etc. It is ridiculous to equate such advocacy initiatives with lobbying. Sabrang Communications therefore denies all the allegations.
Four: While believing in the rule of law and due process, we believe that the State has innumerable devices at its disposal to simply throttle dissent, intimidate and through these crass techniques try to ensure coercive compliance.”