On Wednesday, April 19, the Supreme overturned the Bombay High Court’s decision to exonerate former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba in a case involving alleged Maoist ties. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the high court for reconsideration by a different bench.
The High Court’s ruling from October 14, 2022, allowing Saibaba’s appeal against a 2017 trial court decision convicting and sentencing him to life in prison, was challenged in the case that led to the verdict. The Maharashtra government argued that, in light of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failing to obtain sanction cannot result in acquittal.
That appeal was upheld by the high court on the grounds that, in accordance with Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the sessions court had filed charges against Saibaba without obtaining sanction from the Central government.
The high court must make a decision on the case within four months, according to an order from the bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar. In the interest of propriety, the court ruled that a new bench should hear the case on all points since the bench that acquitted them had already formed an opinion.
The Supreme Court suspended the ruling, noting that the high court had not addressed the case’s merits, the trial court’s decision convicting the defendants.
Breaking: Supreme Court sets aside Bombay HC order acquitting Prof GN Saibaba in a Maoist links case.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) April 19, 2023
– Case remanded; to be decided afresh preferably within 4 months by a different HC bench
– All contentions including question of sanction kept open#SupremeCourtofIndia… pic.twitter.com/BMQsCb4GFU
The State of Maharashtra was represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. The accused was represented by Senior Advocates R. Basant, Nitya Ramakrishna, and Advocate Shadan Farasat.
It is notable that in October last year, the Bombay High Court division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare acquitted GN Saibaba, a former professor of English at Ram Lal Anand College of Delhi University based on the fact that the session court had framed charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act without sanction from the central government, which is required under Section 45(1) of the act.
The High Court bench back then said that even though the charges against the accused are serious and terrorism poses a great threat to the country, a civil democracy can’t bypass procedural safeguards available to the accused. The bench said that “every safeguard, however miniscule, legislatively provided to the accused, must be zealously protected.”
GN Saibaba and several others were convicted and sentenced to life by the sessions court of Gadchiroli in March 2017 for association with the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), an affiliate of CPI(Maoist). Saibaba and the others were found to be posing Naxal literature, and the court had said that they intended to circulate the literature among people in Gadchiroli to incite people to join the Naxals.
Most of the material both in physical and electronic form was found with Saibaba, and allegedly he had introduced others accused in the case with the Maoist organisation.
They were charged under Sections 13, 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The others charged in the case were agriculturists Mahesh Kariman Tirki (22) and late Pandu Pora Narote (27), professor Hem Keshavdatta Mishra (32), journalist Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar (54) and labourer Vijay Nan Tirki (3). GN Saibaba was arrested later, and their trials were clubbed with his trial.
