Injustice Done In Dr GN Saibaba Case Is Most Atrocious For Which Both State And Judiciary Are Culpable
🔹 Background of the Case
Dr. G.N. Saibaba: A Delhi University professor, wheelchair-bound (90% disabled).
Arrest & Charges: Arrested in 2014 by Maharashtra Police under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), accused of alleged Maoist links.
Trial: In 2017, a Gadchiroli Sessions Court convicted him under UAPA and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Appeals:
2022: Bombay HC acquitted him, citing lack of sanction and violation of fair trial principles.
2023: SC stayed the acquittal the next day on State’s appeal, sending him back to jail.
March 2024: SC finally upheld his acquittal, holding that conviction was unsustainable and procedural safeguards were violated.
🔹 Why Called “Most Atrocious Injustice”
1. Violation of Fair Trial Principles
Evidence was largely based on suspicion, digital material, and alleged confessions of co-accused without corroboration.
Denial of proper sanction for prosecution under Section 45 UAPA.
Procedural safeguards of CrPC & Evidence Act ignored.
2. Judicial Apathy
Despite being 90% disabled, Dr. Saibaba was denied bail and medical facilities multiple times.
Courts often mechanically accepted prosecution’s arguments without weighing fundamental rights under Article 21.
Delay in deciding appeals meant he spent nearly a decade in jail without final conviction.
3. State Responsibility
Prosecution pursued the case with political overtones, branding dissent as terrorism.
Despite weak evidence, State kept opposing bail even on humanitarian and medical grounds.
Ignored UN principles and Indian disability rights laws which call for special protection.
4. Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards
Article 21 (right to life & dignity) and Article 14 (equality) were repeatedly violated.
Disability rights under RPwD Act, 2016 ignored.
Judicial process effectively punished him without conviction — contrary to “bail not jail” principle.
🔹 Key Judicial Precedents Relevant
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
SC upheld TADA but stressed that stringent laws cannot override fundamental rights.
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377
Mere membership of a banned organisation without proof of violence or incitement is not enough for conviction.
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
Made bail under UAPA extremely difficult (raising concerns similar to Saibaba’s case).
Dr. G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra (2024, SC)
Final acquittal: SC held that procedural safeguards are not empty formalities; trial court conviction was unsustainable.
🔹 Why Both State & Judiciary Culpable
State: For misusing UAPA to target an academic with dissenting views, ignoring humanitarian grounds, and pushing prosecution despite flimsy evidence.
Judiciary: For years, failed to check this misuse. Courts denied bail repeatedly, ignored disability and health, and delayed appeals — effectively enabling punishment without conviction.
🔹 Broader Implications
Highlights misuse of anti-terror laws (like UAPA) against dissenters.
Shows how judicial delays = injustice, especially in bail and appeal matters.
Demonstrates urgent need for judicial sensitivity towards disabled prisoners and for reforms in preventive detention/anti-terror trials.
✅ Conclusion
The Dr. G.N. Saibaba case stands as one of the worst injustices, where both the State (for persecuting) and the Judiciary (for failing to protect rights timely) share blame.
It underlines that Rule of Law dies if acquittals come only after irreversible years in prison.
Justice delayed in this case was indeed justice denied.
RELATED Blog
0 comments