Within hours of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) acquitting former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and five others in an alleged Maoist links case, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) knocked the doors of the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the same.
A division bench of the Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare of the HC, on Friday, acquitted Saibaba, Mahesh Tirki, Pandu Narote, hem Mishra, Prashant Sanglikar and Vijay Tirki observing that the trial against them was null and void in the absence of a valid sanction under section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The court noted that the sanction to prosecute GN Saibaba under UAPA was accorded by the Maharashtra government after the trial began against him instead of being submitted before, rendering the entire proceeding invalid.
The NIA challenged the acquittal before a division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta sought an urgent listing of appeal and prayed for a hearing on October 17. The judges said that it could not stay the order acquitting Saibaba, directed for the NIA appeal to be listed before an appropriate bench. The judges also specified that the State government could move an application seeking an earlier hearing on Saturday.
The HC was hearing appeals filed by Saibaba and others challenging the 2017 order of the sessions court sentencing them to life imprisonment. Saibaba, who is wheelchair-bound due to a physical disability, is currently lodged at the Nagpur central prison. Pandu Narote died pending a hearing in the appeal.
While acquitting Saibaba the HC noted that while “terrorism poses an ominous threat to national security” and every “legitimate weapon” in the armoury must be deployed against it, “a civil democracy cannot sacrifice procedural safeguards” afforded to the accused.
“We are inclined to hold, that every safeguard, however minuscule, legislatively provided to the accused, must be zealously protected,” said HC.
The court further noted that any aberration of such safeguards shall only be counterproductive and departure from the due process of law “fosters an ecosystem in which terrorism burgeons” which provides fodder to vested interests whose singular agenda is to propagate false narratives.
“The siren song that the end justifies the means, and that the procedural safeguards are subservient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by the voice of rule of law,” read the 110-page judgement.
The prosecution requested the court that if the appeal was not decided on merits, and only on the point of sanction, it (prosecution) may be given the liberty to obtain proper sanction and try the accused.
Rejecting the request, the HC said that it would amount to “double jeopardy” since they have already faced trial once, and the same is held “vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction”.
