G N SAIBABA’S ACCUSATIONS, TRIAL, AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

October 19, 2024

Introduction

G N Saibaba passed away on Saturday in a Hyderabad hospital where he was undergoing treatment. Sai Baba was an assistant professor at Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi. Saibaba was convicted in 2014 by the Sessions Court of Mumbai under the anti-terror law UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) for being a member of the banned organization, namely, Communist Party of India Maoist (CPI-M). Later on, he filed an appeal to the High Court of Bombay, and the High Court acquitted him of all the charges as there were major procedural flaws in his trial.

Saibaba was facing major health issues, and his lawyer also drew the attention of the Court on several occasions to those severe health conditions, but no adequate relief was given to him. The present article aims to present before the readers the need to adhere to the procedural safeguards in a trial, the law on wrongful confinement, and how on health grounds the law may be applied liberally to the accused.

About Saibaba’s conviction

Saibaba was an assistant professor at Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi. On 12 September 2013, Maharashtra Police raided his house in Delhi as it was alleged he was a member of the Maoist Organization. With him, five more persons were arrested, and charges were framed under the UAPA Act and the Indian Penal Act for alleging conspiracy under Section 120B.

It was alleged that all six members, including Sai Baba, were planning to formulate a conspiracy against the Government of India. The police also found various evidences relating to it. Maoist literature, electronic gadgets, and the evidence related to meetings of video clips of Maoists were found with Saibaba.

Therefore, on the basis of evidence produced, electronic evidence. Presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act, Sessions Court found G N Saibaba with five others guilty under the UAPA Act read with Section 120 B of the IPC and sentenced Saibaba for life imprisonment. The decision was passed on 7 March 2017.

Saibaba had some polio infection, due to which he was paralyzed from waist to bottom and was in a wheelchair. On the health conditions, his lawyers argued before the Sessions Court to show some leniency to him; however, he was denied.

Appeal by Saibaba to Bombay High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, Saibaba filed an appeal to the High Court.

The major ground on which the appeal was filed was that

  • No valid sanction of the prosecution was taken, which is a prerequisite under the UAPA. The sanction was taken only after the commencement of the trial, but the law requires that it be taken before the initiation of the proceedings. Since there was a procedural flaw, the conviction was illegal.
  • It was argued that procedural law has its own importance. It has already been held by the apex Court that the procedure by which a person is deprived of his liberty is also required to be just, fair, and reasonable.
  • The State of Maharashtra argued that procedural defect is only a curable defect and is minuscule. Sanction was taken, but it was done after the commencement of trial.
  • However, the High Court ruled in favor of appellants Saibaba. It was stated that Section 45(1) of the UAPA expressly required the valid sanction before the commencement of the trial and the proceedings. Any sanction that is taken after the commencement of the proceedings is of no significance and holds no value in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the absence of fulfillment of the procedural requirement, the whole prosecution was illegal and is required to be declared null and void.
  • Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Appeal to the Supreme Court by the Maharashtra Government

After the acquittal order of the High Court, the Maharashtra government urgently moved to the Supreme Court to stay or overturn the release of Saibaba. A special sitting of the Supreme Court was held on Saturday (a non-working day) to consider the matter. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order and held that the decision of the High Court is required to be considered again on the requirement of the valid sanction. Meanwhile, the family of Saibaba prayed for the release of Saibaba, and also the advocate of Saibaba prayed for the release of Saibaba on medical grounds, however, denied.

After 6 months of the decision of the Supreme Court, which stayed the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court sent back the matter again to the High Court, stating that the matter was not considered on merits.

The reconsideration of the decision by the High Court on merits

  • The High Court then again considered the matter on merits. In reconsideration also, the High Court upheld its previous decision and aquitted Saibaba of all the charges. The High Court made the following observations:
  • The procedural requirement of a valid sanction is a mandatory requirement under the UAPA. Additionally, the sanctioning authority has to apply its mind, and due application of all the facts and circumstances in its decision needs to be shown before the grant of sanction. In the absence of these formalities, the trial is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
  • Moreover, the prosecution has failed to show sufficient evidence to prove the alleged conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India.
  • The search that was conducted was also not done according to the requirements of law.
  • Accordingly, he was acquitted again.

Release of accused on health grounds

Health grounds are generally considered to release the accused on bail. If it is proved that the accused is terminally ill and incarceration is completely fatal for him, then he may be released on bail. Also, in Indian laws, the accused’s sentence may also be remitted by the appropriate government on health grounds.

Saibaba was also released on bail for a short period of time. However, for most of the time he languished in jail, even in the most deteriorated health conditions.

Conclusion

India’s criminal jurisprudence is based upon the adage that let alone a hundred criminals be set free, but even a single innocent person must not be punished. However, cases like Saibaba present a reverse picture of this tenet of criminal jurisprudence. Sometimes the courts have to be liberal in their approach and should not convict a person without sufficient and proper evidence. Also, the due application of bail guidelines has to be observed strictly. The individual rights must not be compromised without adequate grounds. All those things are essential to keeping the faith of people in India’s justice delivery system.

Follow following links for more recent updates-

https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=V-ncXHylL3sGBedB

Leave a Comment