The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which acquitted Professor GN Saibaba and five others in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 over alleged Maoist links.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing the special leave petition filed by the State of Maharashtra, made a prima facie observation that the judgment of the high court is very well reasoned.
The bench noted that GN Saibaba and others were acquitted twice by two different benches of the high court. Earlier in 2022, the Bombay High Court had acquitted them on the ground that valid sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had not been obtained.
In 2023, the apex court overturned this verdict and remitted the matter back to the high court for fresh consideration by a different bench. Previous week, another bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted them on merits as well, noting that there was no evidence to link the accused to any terrorist act and casting doubts on the seizures which the state police claimed to have made from them.
The bench told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Maharashtra, that the presumption of innocence operates with more force once there is an acquittal. It said that in the ordinary course, the special leave petition would not have been admitted even since there are very limited grounds for interfering with an acquittal order.
Justice Gavai remarked that there are two orders of acquittal by two different benches. Prima facie, they find that the judgment is very well-reasoned. He added that since on an earlier occasion, the top court had interfered, they will have to honour that, mentioning that in ordinary course, they would not have entertained the appeal. The parameters of interference with acquittal orders are very limited, he said.
During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General requested another date, stating that certain additional documents needed to be produced. The bench stated that it can grant leave to appeal. Nonetheless, it refused ASG Raju’s request for an early date, stating him to apply for expedition. There can be no urgency to reverse an order of acquittal, the bench observed.