When a draconian State wields the law

The life story of former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba could make a textbook case of injustice, perpetrated by the State on a hapless individual, with relief coming so late that a good part of his life is wasted, never to be recovered.

Saibaba and five others who were accused of having Maoist links and booked under the most draconian laws of the land were acquitted by the Bombay High Court last week after they had spent 10 years in jail. Saibaba is almost an invalid, living on a wheelchair. He was arrested in 2014, and others were accused in 2013, and all of them have been incarcerated since then. One of them is dead.

The trial court had convicted all of them, sentencing five to life and the others to 10-year terms. They were discharged by the High Court on procedural grounds in 2022 but the Supreme Court stayed the discharge, seeking a fresh judgement on merits. 

The prosecution’s case has been completely rejected by the High Court, which held that the seizure effected from the accused was not proved, the material relied upon by the State was inadequate, and that there was nothing to link the accused with any terrorist act, conspiracy or even membership of any Maoist organisation. There was no evidence to support the case that Saibaba was part of an anti-State conspiracy. The sanction given under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for prosecution was not valid because the report of the authority which reviewed the material against the accused did not examine the evidence. The trial court took cognisance of the charges even before the sanction was accorded. What emerges from the story is that the most draconian anti-terror law was wielded against the 90 per cent disabled paraplegic who fought for the rights of the poor and the underprivileged just because the establishment did not like his views and his activities. 

Both procedure and substance failed to support the case and it is clear that the State acted with prejudice and vindictiveness to harass and persecute some persons for many years. Justice ought to be blind but the case showed those who controlled the instruments through which justice is delivered acting blindly against helpless individuals. The law has to be human first but here it was used most inhumanly. Saibaba and others will not get back the 10 years that they lost in jail. Personal liberty is a cardinal constitutional right of all citizens and it cannot be denied and extinguished so casually. Justice has finally prevailed, but there was a heavy price for it. The State is accountable for that.