Denial of Rights to Those Persecuted for 'Thought Crimes' Should Trouble Us All

Prof Saibaba, a man with 90% disability, was acquitted, not once, but twice. Yet, his freedom was short-lived.

As Martin Luther King Jr once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."  

On 12 October, we lost one such man, Professor GN Saibaba—an accomplished scholar, writer, human rights activist, and victim of illegal incarceration. Hailing from Andhra Pradesh, Saibaba’s life exemplified resilience.

Despite being wheelchair-bound from the age of five due to polio, he rose to prominence in academia, earning recognition for his incisive critique of systemic injustices and his steadfast advocacy for the marginalised.  

Yet, his life was shadowed by a grave injustice. Saibaba was controversially incarcerated on charges that many argue were politically motivated, transforming him into a symbol of the ongoing struggle for civil rights and freedom of speech in India.

Even during his imprisonment, he remained an unyielding voice, continuing to fight through his writings for the rights of the oppressed. His death marks a profound loss, but the courage he displayed in standing against adversity will continue to inspire generations to come. 

Saibaba was arrested on 9 May 2014, along with several others in Maharashtra on the allegations that they have links/ties with outlawed Maoist organisations.

In 2017, he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Gadchiroli Sessions Court in Maharashtra. The Trial Court framed charges against all six accused for the offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 20, 38, 39 read with Section 18 of the UAPA and under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Following the conviction and sentence by the Trial court, Saibaba appealed before the Bombay High Court which held that the Trial Court framed the charges and began the proceedings against Prof Saibaba before receiving ‘sanction’ to do so from the Maharashtra government. Section 45 of the UAPA mandates government sanction before a Court can hear the case of an individual charged under that law. Accordingly, Saibaba was acquitted along with the others accused in the case and the Bombay High Court held the entire trial against them to be null and void in the absence of a valid sanction.

The order of the acquittal was passed by the Division bench comprising Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare. The court observed:  

“Verily, terrorism poses an ominous threat to national security. Vile and abhorrent acts of terror do evoke collective societal anger and anguish. While the war against terror must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve, and every legitimate weapon in the armoury must be deployed in the fight against terror, a civil democratic society can ill afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided, and which is an integral facet of the due process of law, at the alter of perceived peril to national security. 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. Any aberration shall only be counterproductive, since empirical evidence suggests that departure from the due process of law fosters an ecosystem in which terrorism burgeons and provides fodder to vested interests whose singular agenda is to propagate false narratives.” 

On 15 October 2022, on a Saturday, the Supreme Court suspended the Bombay High Court’s order discharging/acquitting Saibaba in the alleged Maoist links case. It was a division bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Bela M Trivedi which had stayed the order of the High Court and ultimately remitted the matter back to the High Court, for fresh consideration by another bench.  

Ironically, the bench to which the matter was remitted, also acquitted him and Saibaba won even in the second round of litigation. The High Court found that the evidence in Saibaba’s case had no basis to charge him under the UAPA. The bench comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes held that the trial, held without mandatory compliance, amounts to a failure of justice. 

“There is total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA. The sanction accorded to prosecute Accused Nos.1 to 5 is invalid. Taking of cognizance by the Trial Court without valid sanction or no sanction to prosecute accused No.6 G.N. Saibaba goes to the root of the case, which renders the entire proceedings null and void. There is non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 43-A and 43-B of the UAPA pertaining to arrest, search and seizure. Statutory presumption under section 43-E of the UAPA would not apply for the offences charged. We hold that the trial held despite violation of mandatory provisions of law itself amounts to failure of justice.” 

History will remember how a well-reasoned judgment was stayed on a Saturday, by the Supreme Court no less, and how Saibaba’s liberty was abused.

Prof Saibaba, a man with 90 percent disability, was acquitted, not once, but twice, which means that he was wrongly imprisoned for a decade (nearly ten years of his life).

In a recent case, the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, observed that however strict the law is (in reference to the PMLA), a sick and infirm accused should be given bail. Observing that "sick and infirm" persons can be granted bail despite the stringency of the PMLA, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, the former Chairperson of the Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, accused of money laundering case.  

On the other hand, GN Saibaba was even denied parole to attend the funeral of his mother. In a public interaction after his release in March this year, Saibaba was in tears when he spoke about how he could not meet his mother for the last time. 

In a country where rapists and murderers and rioters with political patronage get parole and remission at the drop of a hat, the denial of basic rights to those persecuted for "thought crimes" should trouble anyone with a conscience. 

(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)