The acquittal of the wheelchair-bound former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba by the Bombay High Court was short-lived as the Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the High Courtâs decision to discharge the academic in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged Maoist links. Maharashtra had rushed to the Supreme Court within hours of the High Court order on Friday. Mr. Saibaba, who is 90% physically disabled, was arrested in 2014 for alleged links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Maharashtraâs Gadchiroli Sessions Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2017. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Saibaba was working as an assistant professor in the Department of English, Ram Lal Anand College, affiliated to Delhi University and was terminated from service in 2021. Eight years after his arrest, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted him and five others on Friday, holding the sessions court order null and void as it did not have valid sanction under the UAPA. His appeal against the sessions court judgment was pending before the High Court for the last five years. The Supreme Court on Saturday, however, framed questions to examine whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused on the grounds of irregular or lack of sanction when the trial court had already convicted them on the merits of the case. The apex court Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Bela Trivedi remarked that generally âas far as terrorist activities are concerned, the brain plays a very important role⦠A brain for such activities is very dangerousâ. This oral remark of the Bench came after Mr. Saibabaâs lawyer, senior advocate R. Basant, said that Mr. Saibaba was 90% physically disabled, responding to the Stateâs allegation that his client was the âbrainâ behind the alleged Maoist activities and his fellow accused were mere âfoot soldiersâ. A request by the academicâs lawyer to transfer him to house arrest on health grounds also failed on Saturday. Mr. Saibabaâs left hand is on the verge of failure and there is acute pain spreading in both hands. He suffers from pancreatitis, high blood pressure, cardiomyopathy, chronic back pain, immobility and sleeplessness. While Mr. Basant requested the Court to grant house arrest on humanitarian grounds owing to the former professorâs medical condition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Maharashtra, argued that isolation in prison was the only condition for UAPA offenders. The professorâs acquittal by the High Court followed by its suspension by the top court in a matter of 24 hours highlights the contrasting stands taken by the two courts on due process. The Bombay High Court said that while âterrorism poses an ominous threat to national security... a civil democratic society can ill-afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided and which is an integral facet of the due process of law at the altar of perceived peril to national securityâ. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, asked if irregular sanction or a deviation from due process was enough to acquit when once a conviction on merits had already taken place. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editorâs Pick and more. Click here The Hindu Explains Explained | The issues in the Collegiumâs functioning Explained | Why did bank bailout research get the Nobel? The Hinduâs Daily Quiz How many seats does the Himachal Pradesh Assembly have? 120 68 75 66 To know the answer and to take the quiz, click here [logo] Editor's Pick 16 OCTOBER 2022 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]( [Open in browser]( [Mail icon]( [More newsletters](
[Privacy Info]( G.N. Saibaba to remain in prison as SC suspends HC acquittal The [acquittal]( of the wheelchair-bound former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba by the Bombay High Court was short-lived as the Supreme Court on Saturday [suspended]( the High Courtâs decision to discharge the academic in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged Maoist links. Maharashtra had rushed to the Supreme Court within hours of the High Court order on Friday. Mr. Saibaba, who is 90% physically disabled, was arrested in 2014 for alleged links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Maharashtraâs Gadchiroli Sessions Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2017. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Saibaba was working as an assistant professor in the Department of English, Ram Lal Anand College, affiliated to Delhi University and was terminated from service in 2021. Eight years after his arrest, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted him and five others on Friday, holding the sessions court order null and void as it did not have valid sanction under the UAPA. His appeal against the sessions court judgment was pending before the High Court for the last five years. The Supreme Court on Saturday, however, framed questions to examine whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused on the grounds of irregular or lack of sanction when the trial court had already convicted them on the merits of the case. The apex court Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Bela Trivedi remarked that generally âas far as terrorist activities are concerned, the brain plays a very important role⦠A brain for such activities is very dangerousâ. This oral remark of the Bench came after Mr. Saibabaâs lawyer, senior advocate R. Basant, said that Mr. Saibaba was 90% physically disabled, responding to the Stateâs allegation that his client was the âbrainâ behind the alleged Maoist activities and his fellow accused were mere âfoot soldiersâ. A request by the academicâs lawyer to transfer him to house arrest on health grounds also failed on Saturday. Mr. Saibabaâs left hand is on the verge of failure and there is acute pain spreading in both hands. He suffers from pancreatitis, high blood pressure, cardiomyopathy, chronic back pain, immobility and sleeplessness. While Mr. Basant requested the Court to grant house arrest on humanitarian grounds owing to the former professorâs medical condition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Maharashtra, argued that isolation in prison was the only condition for UAPA offenders. The professorâs acquittal by the High Court followed by its suspension by the top court in a matter of 24 hours highlights the contrasting stands taken by the two courts on due process. The Bombay High Court said that while âterrorism poses an ominous threat to national security... a civil democratic society can ill-afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided and which is an integral facet of the due process of law at the altar of perceived peril to national securityâ. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, asked if irregular sanction or a deviation from due process was enough to acquit when once a conviction on merits had already taken place. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editorâs Pick and more. [Click here]( The Hindu Explains [Arrow][Explained | The issues in the Collegiumâs functioning](
[Arrow][Explained | Why did bank bailout research get the Nobel?]( The Hinduâs Daily Quiz How many seats does the Himachal Pradesh Assembly have? - 120
- 68
- 75
- 66 To know the answer and to take the quiz, [click here]( Todayâs Best Reads [[Explained | The issues in the Collegiumâs functioning] Explained | The issues in the Collegiumâs functioning](
[[Rural women are warming up to Chhattisgarhiya Olympics] Rural women are warming up to Chhattisgarhiya Olympics]( [[Watch | Booker Prize 2022 contenders] Watch | Booker Prize 2022 contenders](
[[Xi Jinping | The princelingâs next decade] Xi Jinping | The princelingâs next decade]( Copyright @ 2022, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here](
If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](