Misappropriation of funds case: No SC relief for social activist Teesta Setalvad
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from social activist Teesta Setalvad for relief from charges of corruption and misappropriation of funds meant for rehabilitation of Gujarat riot victims.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from social activist Teesta Setalvad for relief from charges of corruption and misappropriation of funds meant for rehabilitation of Gujarat riot victims.
No relief has been given by the court to Teesta in the grave digging matter in which she is also an accused.
The apex court asked her to face trial in the case registered against her and her husband.
The top court said that the charge sheet had already been filed in the case.
The apex court earlier on July 5 reserved its order on Setalvad's plea regarding defreezing of her bank account and the NGOs.
A division bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, was hearing the arguments.
The Gujarat Government told the apex court that Setalvad had allegedly spent NGO money meant for secular education for her personal purpose, including liquor consumption.
Setalvad, rejected the Gujarat Government's allegation and told the court that the state government was harassing her and wanted to paralyse her activities.
She told the apex court, "Only Rs. 7,850 were spent on liquor over seven years and the expenditure was approved by the Ford Foundation which donated money. Is it a crime?"
Teesta, her husband and the two NGOs - Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace - approached the apex court challenging the October 7, 2015, verdict of the Gujarat High Court, which had rejected their pleas for defreezing their personal bank accounts.
One of the residents of Gulberg Society had filed a complaint against Setalvad and others alleging that money was raised to make a museum at Gulberg Society in the memory of those killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, but it had not been utilised for the purpose.
The high court had upheld the verdict of a lower court in this regard observing that the probe was at a serious point. In their plea before the apex court, the petitioners have alleged that their accounts were "illegally freezed" without following the due process of law.