The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the acquittal of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others by the Bombay High Court in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, saying it would be “unusual” to show urgency to imprison a man whose innocence had been already proved by the judgment of a court of law.
“There cannot be any urgency to reverse orders of acquittal… that is unheard of. Urgency is only to reverse conviction,” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a Bench with Justice Sandeep Mehta, addressed Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Maharashtra.
Also Read | G.N. Saibaba | Wheeling into freedom
The Bench noted that a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. A verdict of acquittal in Mr. Saibaba’s case fortified the “presumption of innocence”.
Though the State had not separately applied for a stay of the High Court verdict of acquittal, the special leave petition contained a prayer for interim stay.
The court granted leave, admitting the appeal against the acquittal, but did not specify any date for hearing.
“You can file for early hearing. There are two acquittals by different Benches [of the Bombay High Court]… Prima facie we find that judgment is very well reasoned,” Justice Gavai remarked orally.
Also Read | Free of guilt: On the exoneration of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others
The Bench remarked that it would not have interfered with the judgment, but the Supreme Court had passed orders in the case earlier.
This is the second time Maharashtra had appealed against Mr. Saibaba in this case.
On October 14, 2022, the Bombay High Court had discharged the case against Mr. Saibaba for lack of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or the UAPA.
But the very next day, a Saturday, saw a Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice (now retired) M.R. Shah stay the discharge order of the High Court, saying the “offences involved are very serious against the sovereignty and integrity of the country”.
The decision of the Supreme Court, which came within 24 hours of the High Court’s discharge of the case against the 57-year-old paraplegic, had attracted criticism.
Months later, on April 19 last year, the Bench had set aside the discharge order of the High Court.
The Bench had reasoned that an appellate court (High Court) could not delve into the question of a valid sanction once an accused (Mr. Saibaba) was convicted by the Sessions Court. It had referred the case back to the Bombay High Court for a fresh round of hearing. It had also requested the Bombay Chief Justice to allocate the case to a different Bench of the High Court for the sake of propriety.
However, the High Court, this time, acquitted Mr. Saibaba and five others, confirming the invalidity of the sanction for prosecution.
The High Court had concluded that the sanction was both null and void. “The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case against the accused persons,” it had held.
