SC sets aside Bombay HC order acquitting ex-DU professor Saibaba in Maoist links case

The top court had on October 15 suspended the Bombay High Court order acquitting Saibaba and others in the case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Bombay High Court judgment, which acquitted G N Saibaba, former Delhi University professor, due to lack of valid sanction in an alleged Maoist links case.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar sent back the appeal filed by the state government for fresh consideration before the high court.

The court kept the question of law, including sanction, open for consideration.

The court also suggested that the matter should be heard by a different bench, and not by the same bench which passed the order, since the previous bench had already formed an opinion on the question of sanction.

Also Read | HC can't reverse acquittal without hearing accused: SC

The top court asked the high court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously, preferably within four months.

The Maharashtra government had questioned the validity of the high court judgment passed in October 2022, which allowed an appeal filed by Saibaba challenging a 2017 trial court decision convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

On October 15, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed the high court's order discharging ex Delhi University's English teacher Saibaba and five others in Maoists link case on ground of sanctions.

In its judgement, the high court had held the proceedings in Sessions Trials are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

In its appeal, the Maharashtra government has contended the high court had decided the entire matter on the point of sanction alone without referring to the evidences on record.

The top court had then noted that the high court had not considered the matter on merits, and rather took a shortcut to decide the matter.

"The high court has erred in not considering the fact that the point of sanction was neither raised nor argued before the trial court and yet the trial court had rightly concluded the said point against the accused holding that there was no substantial failure of justice," the state government had said.