SC Suspends High Court Judgment; Stays Release of GN Saibaba, 4 Others

Only a day prior to Saturday’s special sitting, Saibaba and his co-accused had been discharged by Bombay High Court.

Professor GN Saibaba

(Photo: PTI)

The Supreme Court on Saturday, 15 October, suspended the Bombay High Court judgment that had discharged Professor GN Saibaba in an alleged ‘maoist links’ case.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and Bela Trivedi also stayed the release of Saibaba — who is 90% disabled — as well as his four co-accused in the matter.

The fifth co-accused Pandu Narote had fallen sick (reportedly from swine flu) and died on 25 August.

Issuing notice on the appeal preferred by the state of Maharashtra, the bench further said:

"High Court has not considered the merits. High Court has discharged the accused only on the ground that sanction was invalid and some material which was placed before the appropriate authority and sanction was granted on the same day.”

Further, the apex court on Saturday said that any counter to be filed on behalf Saibaba should be done with a period of four weeks of receipt of notice. 

While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the state in this matter, GN Saibaba was represented by Senior Advocate R Basant.

Only a day prior to Saturday’s special sitting, Saibaba and his co-accused had been discharged by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The high court had set aside the sessions court judgment convicting them under the UAPA.

APEX COURT FORMULATES QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED POST VACATION

Posting the matter to be taken up before vacation, the bench formulated a few questions for considerations. According to Livelaw, these questions were:

• After an accused is convicted on merits, is the appellate court justified in discharging the accused on ground of irregular sanction?

• If the trial court has convicted the accused on merits, is the appellate court justified in discharging discharging the accused on the ground of want for sanction, especially when no objection was raised to that effect during trial?

• What will be the consequences of not raising the dispute regarding sanction, and then permitting the trial court to proceed further despite the opportunities given to the accused?
  

WHAT HAD THE HIGH COURT SAID

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday, 14 October, held the entire trial against former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and his co-accused “null and void”. The court discharged them and ordered their immediate release. 

The bench, in their judgment, said that in absence of a valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, the entire trial against Saiba and his co-accused is null and void.

Section 45(1) of the Act holds spells out the conditions that must be met by a court taking cognisance of an offence under chapters III (offences and penalties), IV (punishment for terrorist activities) and VI (terrorist organisations)  of the Act. 

According to the bench, the sanction to prosecute Saibaba was granted by the Maharashtra government only after the trial began, instead of being accorded before.
With regard to the co-accused, the court said that the Directorate of Prosecution’s report to the State Home Department was without reasons, which in turn, is a breach of mandatory provisions (under Section 45(2) of UAPA).

Rejecting the prosecution’s submission that the defect was curable, the court said:

“We are inclined to hold, that every safeguard, however miniscule, legislatively provided to the accused, must be zealously protected”