Balance laws with rights – Hindustan Times

At the same time, Saibaba’s legal battle – in March the Bombay High Court overturned a conviction by a local court in Gadchiroli, and the acquittal was later upheld by the Supreme Court – raised questions about the processes followed in anti-terror cases and the nature of police investigations behind filing serious charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and that neither any seizure nor any other incriminating material could be linked to the suspect. The prosecution’s claim that pamphlets linked to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) were found in Saibaba’s house was rejected by the Supreme Court, which said that mere possession of literature on a particular philosophy could not be an offence. The court emphasized that under the UAPA, an active role in fomenting violence and terrorism was necessary. These are important pointers that both the prosecuting authorities and the lower judiciary should keep in mind to ensure that no one ends up in prison for a long period of time simply because he or she has been charged under a strict law.

Terrorism is a plague that must be eradicated. But laws designed to catch terrorists must be balanced with constitutional freedoms that safeguard individual liberty, not make the process a punishment. Saibaba’s years in prison and the denial of his bail, with the courts eventually acquitting 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 guarantees.