The death of Professor GN Saibaba is a wake-up call to prevent misuse of UAPA against dissenters

Saibaba, who was 90% disabled and dependent on a wheelchair for mobility, suffered massive physical decline during his captivity. In prison he developed serious ailments that affected several organs, including the heart and gall bladder. In his prison memoir, titled “Why Are You So Afraid of Me?”, Saibaba wrote that the prison sentence put him under “excruciating brutal pain,” and that “one after another my organs began to burst.” He said prison conditions reduced him to inhumane and dehumanizing levels

“My vocal cords developed lesions that caused my voice to become a thin and inaudible squeak. My heart broke due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. My brain starts blacking out with a condition called syncope. My kidneys are clogged with pebbles; my gallbladder collected stones and pancreas developed a tail of pain called pancreatitis. Nerve lines in my left shoulder broke under the circumstances of my arrest, known as brachial plexopathy. More and more silent organs replaced the original. I live day in and day out with explosive and shooting pain. I live on the edge of life,” he wrote.

Despite his deteriorating health, the courts repeatedly rejected his bail applications on medical grounds. He was even denied parole to attend his mother’s funeral. In a public interaction after his release in March this year, Saibaba was in tears as he said he could not meet his mother for the last time. “I couldn’t see my mother one last time before her death because I was denied parole. This is a denial of basic human rights.” he said, breaking down. In a country where rapists, murderers and rioters are granted parole and remission at the drop of a hat with political support, the denial of basic rights to those prosecuted for ‘thought crimes’ should alarm anyone with a conscience.

It must be remembered that Saibaba was acquitted not once, but twice. In October 2022, the Bombay High Court ruled that the trial was invalid as there was no valid UAPA sanction, and discharged Saibaba and five co-accused and ordered their immediate release. But the next day, the Supreme Court suspended their release during an extraordinary hearing on Saturday. Saturday’s hearing to delay their release raised troubling questions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Supreme Court for rehearing by another court.

In the second round, the Supreme Court acquitted the suspect. It should be noted that it was not an acquittal based on a mere technicality or on the benefit of the doubt. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence in the case was completely unbelievable and found absolutely no basis for the UAPA charges. The malicious nature of the investigation and prosecution is evident from the manner in which the Supreme Court dismissed the alleged seizures of incriminating material from Saibaba’s residence at Delhi University, after detailing various reasons. The Court was surprised to note that the police had chosen an illiterate person as a witness to the seizure despite the availability of educated persons on the college campus. Moreover, the seizure was a closed case with Saibaba and the witness was excluded. The inability to record the hash value of the electronic gadgets also raised the suspicions of the Supreme Court, leading it to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the materials from Saibaba’s residence. The Court further held that the UAPA offense of terrorism cannot be established merely on the basis of alleged downloading of material containing communist or Naxal philosophy.

“No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution by any witness of any incident, attack, act of violence or even evidence collected at a previous place of offense where a terrorist act has taken place, to link the accused with such act. by participating in its preparation or direction, or by supporting its committee in any way”, the Supreme Court noted.

Although the prosecutor rushed to the Supreme Court to appeal the verdict, the Supreme Court refused to suspend the verdict in the second round. two acquittal orders.

While discussing Saibaba’s predicament, one cannot forget the name of another co-accused in the case, Pandu Pora Narote, who died as a prisoner in August 2022 before his name was cleared.

Saibaba and Narote’s predicament immediately brings back memories of the shocking death of Father Stan Swamy while in custody in the Bhima Koregaon case, another UAPA case against activists for alleged Maoist links. These cases illustrate how the trial itself becomes the punishment under the UAPA, with the suspect subject to lengthy detentions without trial. The words of former Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam in a public speech in 2021 have deep resonance: “Where has this draconian law in the world’s largest democracy brought us? The results are visible to everyone. It stares us in the face at the death of Father Stan Swamy without trial. There are dozens of Indians who are being acquitted and when I come out of prison, with a broken life and virtually no future, I believe that the UAPA has failed us on both counts: constitutional freedom and national security!’

It is high time that the human cost of these unjust detentions under UAPA is calculated and responsibility is placed on the investigating officers who have ensnared innocents by misusing the statute. Instead of merely acquitting or discharging suspects, the courts should devise measures to compensate them for the freedom and dignity they have lost during imprisonment. The state should give a healing touch to the UAPA victims, through rehabilitation measures to enable them to put their shattered lives back on track. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of personal freedom will remain just an empty promise.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court made a relevant observation that in cases of pure acquittal, where the suspect has been in custody for years without trial, a claim for damages could be possible against the state. “One day the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to rely on a special situation that arises in our legal system. There are cases in which the criminal courts grant a clean acquittal to the suspect after a very long incarceration, because of an undertrial. When we speak of a clean acquittal, we exclude the cases in which the witnesses have become hostile or there is a bona fide flawed investigation . In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the suspect’s life are lost. In this case, it may amount to a violation of the suspect’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which may give rise to a claim for damages. ” said the Court.

Professor Saibaba’s death should be a wake-up call for meaningful reforms to prevent abuse of draconian laws against dissenters. The outpouring of grief and outrage following his death should lead to positive systemic changes. Because Saibaba himself despised sympathy and only wanted solidarity.

‘I hope none of you will sympathize with my plight. I don’t believe in sympathy, I only believe in solidarity. I just wanted to tell you my story because I believe it is your story too. Also because I believe that my freedom is your freedom.”– Why are you so afraid of my path? Poems and letters from prison, GN Saibaba.