In an enthralling nocturnal judicial showdown, the Supreme Court, with its knack for the dramatic, broke its Saturday night repose to grant interim bail to the contentious activist, Teesta Setalvad. Yes, not one, but two urgent hearings took place, a privilege many might envy, considering the number of times more commonplace, yet pressing matters are placed on the back burner while cases with high-profile actors like this are promptly entertained, regardless of the hour.

Emerging from the suspense-filled courtroom drama, Setalvad obtained a week-long hiatus from the edict of the Gujarat High Court, which had demanded her immediate surrender. This plot twist was orchestrated by a larger three-judge bench, a strategic move following an unresolved disagreement within a two-judge bench. Justices Abhay S Oka and Prashant Kumar Mishra had found themselves at an impasse on the appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision denying regular bail.

To break the stalemate, a rapid-fire request was shot to the Chief Justice of India, a request to establish a larger bench that would hopefully not succumb to indecision. In a flurry of judicial urgency, a larger bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta was hastily formed. With no time to waste, a late-night hearing was set for 9.15 PM that very evening. Talk about judicial efficiency!

Entering the courtroom stage under the spotlight were Senior Advocate CU Singh and Advocate Aparna Bhat, the defenders of Teesta Setalvad. Their counterpart, the state's advocate in this heated legal discourse, was none other than Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Present as well was Senior Advocate CU Singh, an influential figure on the stage.

In a move that shifted the focus from the intricacies of the case, the bench clarified, "We are not going into the merits of the matter. We are only concerned with that part of the order which rejected the petitioner’s request for a stay." The bench continued, "In ordinary circumstances, we would not have interfered. After the petitioner was arrested, this Court considered her request for interim bail…One of the factors which weighed with this Court in granting interim bail was that the petitioner was a lady and was entitled to special protection under S.437 CrPC. Taking into consideration this fact, the learned single judge ought to have granted some time…We stay the order of the single bench for a period of one week."

CU Singh commenced his defense by invoking a prior order from September 2022 by then CJI UU Lalit granting interim bail to Setalvad. He declared his client's innocence, stating, "I have never been called for a single interrogation since I have not violated any interim bail condition." He continued, outlining that of the seven sections in the chargesheet, only two - sections 194 and 498, were non-bailable.

However, the bench cut him short, emphasizing, "We are only today concerned by interim protection. When was the impugned order passed?" Singh, in response, underscored the High Court's unexplained denial of a 30-day interim stay.

The plot thickened as the Solicitor General was called to present his case. SG Tushar Mehta urged the bench to treat the case as they would an ordinary citizen's bail challenge. Justice Gavai countered, questioning the need for immediate action when the individual had been out on bail for an extended period. "Skies will not fall. What is the alarming urgency? We will hear you," he declared.

Mehta, unwavered, maintained his arguments. He accused Setalvad of abusing every forum and launching false campaigns against everyone. She was not above the law, he asserted, but an ordinary criminal. Yet, the rule of law seemed to be at stake, given the unusual circumstances and urgency surrounding the case.

The courtroom spectacle concluded with the court querying the Solicitor General, "Whether heavens will fall in 7 days?" A question that perhaps encapsulates the entire dramatic judicial episode, reminding us once again of the curious happenings that can transpire within the hallowed halls of justice.

Ah, the sweet strains of justice – where time stops, where the weekend becomes a weekday, and where even sarcasm has a silver lining. A case in point is the recent courtroom exchange where Justice Datta decided to make a rather peculiar observation. “With the judgment coming on a Saturday when it comes to loss of liberty. Two judges also had a difference of opinion,” he said. How fascinating, isn't it, that our judicial system, that frequently adjourns the pleas of common citizens for months, suddenly springs into action on weekends for a high-profile case?

In response to this, a clearly flummoxed SG Tushar Mehta responded, “What can I do?” It's almost as if he was caught unawares by the liberty-laced enthusiasm of the court. But Justice Datta, not one to be deterred by such simple remarks, retorted, “Not the point. You have to be in favour of liberty.” After all, what is a weekend, a leisurely time for most, when the liberty of a high-profile figure is in question?

Next up on the stage was Justice Gavai, who, with a tone of righteousness, said, “We find that learned single judge was totally wrong in not giving interim stay … When she was out for 7 months.” The courtroom seemed to echo with the undercurrent of the bias towards influential individuals. While ordinary citizens languish in prisons awaiting trial, the influential ones seem to enjoy the privilege of being out for months.

When SG Mehta tried to argue that Teesta Setalvad had committed a shocking act, Justice Bopanna quickly dismissed it and quipped, “We are ready to pass orders saying Good Morning also.” What a delightful way of dismissing a serious argument!

In a reminder of the weight of his position, Justice Gavai told SG Mehta that he is representing a mighty state. As if realizing the magnitude of the position he was in, Mehta said that Setalvad had taken institutions for a ride and had maligned the state by writing to Geneva. But, to this Justice Datta responded saying that although Setalvad's conduct may be reprehensible, she cannot be denied interim liberty, not even for a day. It appears that some people have the luxury of having their liberty defended so vehemently.

Justice Gavai then took the lead to announce the decision. He said, “A 3-judge bench of this Court thought it fit to grant her interim bail. What harm if granted for 8 more days? We will post before the regular bench and will grant her interim bail till then. We are staying High Court order.” The obvious question here is, would a common citizen have been granted such leniency?

Without delving into the merits of the case, the bench said, “We are not going into the merits of the matter. We are only concerned with that part of the order which rejected the petitioner’s request for a stay. In ordinary circumstances, we would not have interfered. After the petitioner was arrested, this Court considered her request for interim bail vide order dated 2nd September 2022”. It's amazing how the scales of justice seem to tip favourably for the influential.

Furthermore, the bench stated, “One of the factors which weighed with this Court in granting interim bail was that the petitioner was a lady and was entitled to special protection under section 437 of CrPC. Taking into consideration this fact, the learned single judge ought to have granted some time …we stay the order of the single bench for a period of one week.” Makes one wonder if such consideration is universally applied.

Following a disagreement between Justices Abhay S Oka and Prashant Kumar Mishra on the appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court order refusing regular bail, a larger 3-judge bench was formed. While the High Court had demanded her immediate surrender to the police, Setalvad chose to approach the apex court instead.

The 2-judge bench had refused interim relief and recommended to CJI DY Chandrachud to form a larger bench. In their words, “There is a disagreement between us on the question of grant of bail. So we request the Chief Justice to assign this matter to a larger bench.” And thus, in a move that surprised everyone, a 3-judge bench was formed within minutes, with a hearing scheduled at the unbelievable hour of 9.15 PM.

Addressing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Setalvad challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision to reject her regular bail application, the bench primarily dealt with the accusations based on an FIR filed by the state police. The accusations were grave – forging documents to falsely implicate high-ranking government officials in the infamous 2002 Gujarat riots. Yet, the High Court ordered her to surrender without any delay.

One must marvel at the intrigue of the court proceedings – where high-profile personalities command prompt attention, legal discussions extend into the weekend, and courtrooms seem to be more hospitable than the regular confines of business hours.