‘‘IT appears that an attempt has been made by Teesta Setalvad and Mihir Desai of the Citizens for Justice and Peace to run a parallel investigating agency, whereas the statutory authority to investigate any case is the police, CBI or any other agency established under the statute. We do not know how far it is proper but we can certainly state that it is not permissible under the law.’’ Who spoke these words? Narendra Modi? Arun Jaitley? Neither, though both these leaders did launch similar attacks on Setalvad and her NGO in the wake of Zaheera Sheikh’s latest volte-face on the Best Bakery massacre. The lines quoted above were actually among the several caustic remarks expunged by the Supreme Court earlier this year from a judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court upholding the acquittal of all the accused in the Best Bakery case. Given the allegations Zaheera herself is now making against Teesta, it is interesting to recall that the apex court had directed that all the observations made against the activist ‘‘shall stand expunged and deleted from the judgment of the High Court and consequently must be treated as having never existed or being part of the High Court judgment’’. The deleted portions include the High Court’s denunciation that Setalvad and Desai were ‘‘misusing poor persons like Zaheera’’ and that they were doing so ‘‘for their petty benefits.’’ The Supreme Court also expunged the portion which said: ‘‘It is most unfortunate that a handful of people are indulging in dirty tricks and wrongly defaming the state of Gujarat and its people for ulterior motives.’’ The volte-face has once again brought Setalvad under the spotlight. She now stands accused of forcing Zaheera to implicate specific people in the Best Bakery case All such excision was done on a petition filed by Setalvad and Desai. The Supreme Court passed this judgment on April 12, 2004—in the run-up to the Lok Sabha election—along with the one ordering a re-trial of the Best Bakery case in Mumbai. The verdict written by Justice Arijit Pasayat faulted the High Court for making all those personal observations against Setalvad and Desai as they ‘‘do not prima facie appear to have any relevance to the subject matter of the dispute.’’ This is, however, no more the case. Regardless of the damage to her own credibility, Zaheera has once again brought Setalvad under the spotlight by alleging that the activist had forced her to implicate some specific persons in the mass murder committed by rioters. Given the serious nature of her allegations—that Setalvad had wrongfully confined her and even beaten her on occasion—Zaheera may take the logical follow-up of registering a case against the NGO and its members. Or, will she keep off from doing so for fear of being exposed all over again?
