Court Acquits Professor, Student, Journalist and Others in UAPA Case

‘No Evidence, No Crime Committed,” Says Professor’s Wife

Newsreel Asia Insight #152
March 6, 2024

A former Delhi University professor and five others, including a journalist and a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, were acquitted by the Bombay High Court on March 5 in a case linking them to Maoist activities, according to media reports. The verdict came after a prolonged legal battle that highlighted significant procedural and evidentiary issues related to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Prof. G.N. Saibaba is 90% handicapped and wheelchair-bound, with severe health conditions, and yet he had to endure the harsh conditions of his imprisonment. Despite his physical limitations, Saibaba faced life imprisonment in an “anda” cell of Nagpur Jail since his conviction in 2017.

An “anda” cell refers to a high-security solitary confinement cell. The term “anda” translates to “egg” in Hindi, reflecting the cell’s unique, oval or egg-shaped design. This architectural choice is deliberate, aiming to minimise the chances of communication between inmates and to restrict their view of the outside world, thereby isolating them further. These cells are typically used for inmates considered high-risk, either because of the nature of their crimes, their behaviour, or the perceived risk they pose to prison security or themselves.

The professor spent years in jail without the possibility of parole or bail, even during his mother’s illness and subsequent death, as reported by Rediff News, which quoted Vasantha Kumari, wife of Prof. Saibaba, as saying: “I expected this. After all we knew there was no evidence, no crime committed by him.”

The case against Saibaba, Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Hem Keshavdatta Mishra, Pandu Pora Narote, Prashant Rahi and Pandu Narote (who died in August 2022) revolved around their alleged involvement with Maoist groups, a charge they were convicted of in 2017 by a sessions court in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district. The prosecution claimed to have found incriminating materials such as documents, a hard disk, and pen drives during a raid on Saibaba’s residence, leading to their conviction under the stringent provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code.

However, the Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit Saibaba and the others was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also declared the sanction procured by the prosecution to charge the accused under UAPA provisions as “null and void.” The verdict followed an earlier acquittal in October 2022, which was set aside by the Supreme Court, directing a fresh hearing on the appeal.

The legal journey of Saibaba and his co-accused has been marked by several critical observations and rulings. In October 2022, a different bench of the Bombay High Court had initially acquitted them, citing the absence of a valid sanction under UAPA, making the trial proceedings “null and void.” The decision underscored the importance of procedural safeguards and due process in legal proceedings, even in cases involving alleged national security concerns.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in October 2022, suspending the high court’s verdict and later setting it aside in April 2023, emphasised the need for a detailed scrutiny of the high court’s judgment. The apex court’s directive for a fresh hearing by a different bench within four months led to the acquittal by Justices Vinay G. Joshi and Valmiki S.A. Menezes.

One of the primary issues with the UAPA is its broad and often vague definitions of what constitutes “unlawful activities” or “terrorism.” For instance, Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a terrorist act, is expansive and can encompass a wide range of actions. This vagueness allows for a broad interpretation, potentially leading to misuse against political dissenters, activists and minority groups. The lack of a precise definition can result in arbitrary application, which is antithetical to the rule of law.

The UAPA also allows for extended detention periods without charge. Under Section 43D(2), the Act permits the detention of an individual for up to 180 days without a charge sheet being filed. This is a significant deviation from the standard criminal procedure in India, where the maximum period before filing a charge sheet is typically 60 to 90 days. Such prolonged detention without formal charges undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and can be seen as a violation of basic human rights.

Further, the UAPA makes the grant of bail extremely difficult. Under Section 43D(5), bail is denied if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This provision shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, which is a significant departure from the normal criminal justice system where the presumption is in favour of granting bail.

Furthermore, the Act gives the government wide powers to ban organisations and designate individuals as terrorists. Under Sections 35 and 36, the government can unilaterally declare an organisation as a terrorist organisation and individuals as terrorists. This power, with minimal judicial oversight, raises concerns about its potential misuse against political opponents and minority groups.

The impact of such laws extends beyond the individuals directly affected. The UAPA, particularly with its broad definitions, can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and dissent. The fear of being labelled a terrorist or supporting terrorism can deter individuals and organisations from engaging in legitimate political or social activism. This is detrimental to the democratic ethos of a society where dissent and dialogue are essential.

Moreover, the UAPA does not seem to adequately balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights. The principle of proportionality requires that any restriction on rights should be proportionate to the need for such restriction. However, the sweeping powers and stringent provisions of the UAPA raise questions about whether it meets this standard of proportionality.