The Supreme Court was right to stay Bombay HC order on G N Saibaba

Source: The post is based on an article “The Supreme Court was right to stay Bombay HC order on G N Saibaba” published in The Indian Express on 1^st November 2022.

Syllabus: GS 3 – Security

News: The article discusses the misuse of technical irregularity provision of the criminal law in the context of G N Saibaba case.

What are the different terms used in the criminal law?

Acquit: In this, the court decides that a person is not guilty of the crime charged against him after a detailed and elaborate trial and hearing of the allegation and evidence presented by both sides.

Convict: in this, the court that a person is guilty of committing a crime after the investigation and presentation of charges against the person and after a detailed trial on all facts and evidence collected by both sides

Discharge: It is a result either of a technical irregularity in the process or the failure to establish any charge against the person after investigation. This technicality has been used by the accused in the current case.

What are the provisions under UAPA?

The UAPA has a provision that requires the prosecution to obtain permission of the government before filing of the chargesheet in order to proceed.

The permission was granted by the government but the accused raised a technicality issue regarding the same for the first time after conviction.

However, the permission granted in the UAPA is different from the permission provided to public servants in the anti-corruption laws.

Moreover, in both the cases, the law states that a technicality can never override an order of conviction passed after detailed examination of facts and an elaborate trial unless there is a failure of justice.

What were the decision taken by HC and SC?

HC pardoned Saibaba and the other accused only technicality of sanction which was not a good step. This situation would have released the terrorists found guilty after an elaborate trial.  Therefore, the Maharashtra Government approached Supreme Court.

SC after looking at the history of the criminal law decided not provide any relief to the accused on the grounds of technicality. It also suspended the operation of the order of the High Court.

According to the SC, there has been no such incident in the history of the criminal law where an order of conviction recorded after a detailed trial has been set aside on the technical grounds of sanction for prosecution in UAPA offences.

How do others view the decision of the SC?

Some sections of the media portrayed the order as if the SC has stayed an acquittal order while other sections talk about personal liberties or human rights mostly to bring pressure on the judiciary.

However, court should not look at those views as justice prevails over the humanity.

Moreover, the charges against Saibaba and the other accused have been factually found by the competent court to in supporting the activities of terrorism of the Naxal.

Therefore, the issue of technicality does not arise after the conviction is done on merits.

What are the impacts of Naxalism?

Naxalism or terrorism has wide range impact including the nation’s integrity and on society.

It is an ideology that that has taken more Indian lives in the past two decades than any other form of terrorism.

It tries to change the government created by the constitution and establish its own version of a communist state.

Therefore, steps taken by SC were apt and it prevented the bigger mishappening in the future by keeping the Naxals behind the bars.