Teesta Setalvad
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2011-042-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2011
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 20.593684
Longitude: 78.96288
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- India
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 29 March 2011
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Female
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
Secretary of the organization Citizens for Justice and Peace, a Mumbai-based non-governmental organization.
- Type of rights defended
- Accountability & impunity
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
Letters copied to OHCHR voicing concern regarding the lack of protection by the Team for witnesses and victims of the Gulbarg Society Massacre.
- Engagement with UN body
- OHCHR: OHCHR - General
- Dates of engagement
- Sometime between 5 October 2010 and 20 January 2011
- Type of attempted engagement
- Submission of information to UN
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 20 January 2011; 17 February 2011
- Reprisal information
On 20 January 2011, Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, the Supreme Court judges handling the case surrounding the Gujarat riots of February 2002, reportedly reprimanded Ms. Setalvad for sending copies of the above-mentioned letters dated 5 and 7 October 2010 to OHCHR. The court allegedly did not “appreciate” letters about the proceedings being sent to OHCHR and viewed such activity as interference in these proceedings. On 17 February 2011, Ms. Setalvad was again allegedly issued with a verbal warning against writing to OHCHR by Justices D. K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam. Ms. Jaiswal, Ms. Setalvad’s lawyer,was allegedly told that her client had to promise not to send any further communication to OHCHR on information regarding the proceedings
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 1
- In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
- 2014
- Follow up information provided in SG report 0
41.The case of Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace, which provides legal support to the victims of the Gulbarg Society massacre, was mentioned in the 2011 report on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.57 A reply was received on 27 July 2011, in which the Government stated that it had examined the matter and it would be inappropriate to comment since the matter was sub judice.58 On 4 January 2014, officials from the Gujarat Crime Branch reportedly filed a First Information Report against Ms. Setalvad and Javeed Anand, editor of the magazine Communalism Combat, allegedly for embezzlement of a large sum of money provided for the construction of the Gulbarg Society massacre memorial. They were subsequently charged with several offences including criminal conspiracy. On 10 January 2014, Ms. Setalvad and Mr. Anand were reportedly granted interim bail by the Bombay High Court, which observed that Ms. Setalvad had been falsely implicated in the past. The hearing was reportedly adjourned to 23 April 2014.59 At the time of finalization of the present report, no reply had been received from the Government to a joint communication sent on 11 April 2014 by three special procedures mandate holders
- Followup Trends 0
- Deterioration/further reprisals
- Did the government respond? 0
- Yes
- Was this case followed up by a UN body? 0
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic