The Maharashtra government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench decision to set aside the conviction of former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba and five others in an alleged Maoist-links case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
A division bench comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes passed the order. Saibaba and his co-accused have been under custody since their arrest in 2014 on charges of having links with Maoist organizations and waging war against India.
During the proceedings at the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, the prosecution contended that the accused were working for the banned CPI (Maoist) group through front organizations such as RDF.
In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence including seized pamphlets and electronic material deemed as anti-national, allegedly seized at the behest of GN Saibaba in Gadchiroli. It was also alleged that GN Saibaba handed over a 16GB memory card intended for Naxalites sheltering in the Abuzmad forest area.
The subsequent trial resulted in their conviction in March 2017 under sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA and 120-B of IPC (Indian Penal Code). One of the accused, Pandu Pora Narote, died in August 2022. The other accused are Mahesh Tirki, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vijay Nan Tirki.
Earlier in 2022, another bench of the Bombay High Court had set aside the conviction based on procedural grounds, with the bench of Justice Rohit Deo and Justice Anil Pansare holding the trial void owing to the absence of a valid sanction under section 45(1) of the UAPA.
The court pointed out the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving terrorism and stressed that departures from due process could foster an environment conducive to terrorism.
Nonetheless, in a special Saturday sitting, which attracted controversy, the apex court stayed the High Court order the very next day after an urgent mention by the Maharashtra Government.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court overturned this decision in a plea lodged by the Maharashtra government challenging the acquittal and directed the Bombay High Court to reevaluate the case afresh.
The top court ordered that the Bombay High Court must consider all aspects of the case, including the question of sanction. The bench emphasized that the high court should proceed without prejudice and solely on the merits of the case, without being influenced by its earlier order.
The court added that it would be open for the state to contend that once an accused is convicted after the conclusion of a trial, the validity of the sanction or the lack thereof would become insignificant. Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed that the case be assigned to a different bench to maintain propriety and avoid any apprehensions.
However, the apex court clarified that it had not made any determination on the merits of the case and emphasized the need for a thorough review by the High Court.