close_game
close_game

Balance laws with rights

ByHT Editorial
Oct 14, 2024 12:29 AM IST

Professor’s death puts the spotlight on the need to ensure that constitutional safeguards are followed even in cases involving national security

Roughly seven months after he walked out of Nagpur jail after being acquitted of serious charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba died on Saturday night. The 57-year-old paraplegic served as an English professor at Delhi University’s Ram Lal Anand College, from where he was suspended in 2014 after being arrested for suspected Maoist links. Over the last decade, Saibaba’s case has become a livewire example of a recurring concern – cases involving stringent statutes condemning the accused to long periods of incarceration without bail. His disability compounded the problem, often inviting allegations of prison callousness and underlining the lacunae in Indian jails in dealing with the issues of disabled inmates. Saibaba’s health suffered gravely, his wife and friends often alleged, highlighting the lack of facilities and empathy inside prison.

**EDS: FILE PHOTO** Nagpur: In this Friday, Dec 25, 2015 file photo, former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba arrives at the Nagpur Central Jail. Saibaba died at a state-run hospital in Hyderabad due to health-related complications on Saturday, merely seven months after he was acquitted in a case of alleged links with Maoists after 10 years in prison. (PTI Photo) (PTI10_12_2024_000422A) *** Local Caption *** (PTI) PREMIUM
**EDS: FILE PHOTO** Nagpur: In this Friday, Dec 25, 2015 file photo, former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba arrives at the Nagpur Central Jail. Saibaba died at a state-run hospital in Hyderabad due to health-related complications on Saturday, merely seven months after he was acquitted in a case of alleged links with Maoists after 10 years in prison. (PTI Photo) (PTI10_12_2024_000422A) *** Local Caption *** (PTI)

At the same time, Saibaba’s legal battle – in March, the Bombay high court reversed a conviction by a Gadchiroli local court, and the acquittal was later confirmed by the Supreme Court – raised questions about processes followed in anti-terror cases and the nature of police investigations behind levelling serious charges. The high court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and that neither any seizure nor any other incriminating material could be linked to the accused. The prosecution’s assertion that pamphlets connected to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) were found in Saibaba’s home was junked by the high court, which said that mere possession of literature of a particular philosophy could not be an offence. The court insisted that an active role in fomenting violence and terrorism was necessary under UAPA. These are important pointers that both prosecuting agencies and the lower judiciary must keep in mind to ensure that no one is incarcerated for long periods merely because they have been charged under a stringent law.

Terrorism is a scourge, one that must be wiped out. But laws meant to nab terrorists must be balanced with constitutional freedoms guarding individual liberty and must not make the process the punishment. Saibaba’s years in jail and the denial of his bail, only for the courts to eventually acquit him of all charges, are a reminder that every stakeholder in the criminal justice system must ensure a tough but fair prosecution that adheres to constitutional safeguards.

Unlock a world of...
See more
Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!

Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription

Daily E Paper I Premium Articles I Brunch E Magazine I Daily Infographics
freemium
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Sunday, November 03, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On
// // //