On April 19, the Supreme Court (SC) has set aside Bombay High Court’s (HC) order acquitting former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and others for their alleged ties with Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), an alleged affiliate of banned Maoist organisation CPI (Maoist).
The SC remanded the case back to the HC for afresh consideration on merits within four months. The SC stated that the HC did not examine the incriminating evidence against him and the merits of the case while announcing its ruling.
The SC said, “In view of the consensus between the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, with the consent of the counsel of the respective parties, we set aside the impugned common judgement and order passed by the Bombay High Court. The matters are remitted back to the high court to decide the said appeals afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, including the question of sanction.” Furthermore, the bench ordered the case to be heard by a different bench.
The Sessions Court sentenced GN Saibaba to life imprisonment in 2017. The Sessions Court noted that GN Saibaba “is mentally fit and is a think tank of the banned organisation which by its violent activities has brought the industrial and other development in the naxal affected areas to grinding halt.”
Furthermore, the Sessions Court observed that imprisonment for life is not a sufficient punishment to accused GN Saibaba and the hands of the Court are tied in view of the fact that the imprisonment for life is the maximum punishment statutorily provided. However, the HC rejected the Sessions Court’s observations and acquitted GN Saibaba and other co-accused on October 14, 2022.
However, the HC’s acquitted GN Saibaba on procedural grounds as a valid sanction as required u/s UAPA was not obtained declaring the trial to be null and void. The HC said that the procedural safeguards cannot be sacrificed for “perceived peril to national security.”
The Maharashtra Government moved the SC against the HC’s order acquitting GN Saibaba on procedural grounds. Justice Shah orally remarked, “We are finding a fault with the High Court for not entering the merits of the case and for finding a shortcut to decide (on the basis of sanction).”
Furthermore, Justice Trivedi noted that an appellate court can acquit after reversing the trial court’s findings as per section 386 CrPC, however, the accused in this case was discharged based on procedural grounds, without going into the merits of the case.
It is pertinent to note that the HC also acquitted Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote, Hem Keshavdatta Mishra and Prashant Sanglikar, while releasing Vijay Nan Tirki on bail.
The SC stated that the different bench could consider all questions arising in the case, including the issue of sanctions. The SC added that the HC should dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with the law without being influenced by the Nagpur Bench’s decision.
Furthermore, the SC said that the appeals would have to be placed before a different bench than the one which acquitted GN Saibaba “to avoid any further apprehensions.”
