>The Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) refused to stay the Bombay high court judgment acquitting former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others in a UAPA case, saying that the high court’s order is *prima facie* 'very well reasoned.'"
>“'There are two orders of acquittal by two different benches. *Prima facie*, we find that the judgment is very well-reasoned. Since on an earlier occasion, this court had interfered, we’ll have to honour that. Otherwise, this is a very well-reasoned judgment by the high court. In ordinary course, we would not have entertained this appeal. The parameters of interference with acquittal orders are very limited.'” >“'The law is that there is a presumption of innocence. Once there’s an order of acquittal, that presumption gets fortified,' [said Justice Gavai]." -------------------------- By: The Wire Staff Published in: *The Wire* Date: March 11, 2024 Source: https://thewire.in/law/very-well-reasoned-sc-refuses-to-stay-bombay-hc-order-acquitting-saibaba-others "It's a hard-earned acquittal. How many years has the man spent in jail?" Justice Mehta said. *New Delhi: *The Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) refused to stay the Bombay high court judgment acquitting former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others in a UAPA case, saying that the high court’s order is *prima facie* “very well reasoned”. According to *LiveLaw* <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-gn-saibaba-alleged-maoist-links-case-uapa-state-of-maharashtra-251834>, a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta were hearing a special leave petition filed by the state of Maharashtra. The bench pointed out that Saibaba had (sic) his co-accused had been acquitted twice, by two different benches of the high court. The judges told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Maharashtra: “There are two orders of acquittal by two different benches. *Prima facie*, we find that the judgment is very well-reasoned. Since on an earlier occasion, this court had interfered, we’ll have to honour that. Otherwise, this is a very well-reasoned judgment by the high court. In ordinary course, we would not have entertained this appeal. The parameters of interference with acquittal orders are very limited.” “It’s a hard-earned acquittal. How many years has the man spent in jail?” Justice Mehta added, followed by Justice Gavai saying, “The law is that there is a presumption of innocence. Once there’s an order of acquittal, that presumption gets fortified.” As *The Wire* has reported <https://thewire.in/law/saibaba-acquittal-from-lack-of-sanction-to-dodgy-evidence-high-court-judgment-tears-into-states-case>, the Bombay high court judgment had criticised both the state’s probe and the trial court judgment finding the men guilty. Justice Vinay G. Joshi and Justice Valimiki S. Menezes on March 5 acquitted Saibaba, along with journalist Prashant Rahi, Mahesh Tikri, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra and Vijay Nan Tikri of all charges. The sixth person in the case, Pandu Narote, died in August 2022, awaiting this verdict. Saibaba, who is wheelchair-bound and is over 90% handicapped, said he can’t move an inch without others’ help. He said after his release that it is “only by chance <https://thewire.in/rights/it-is-only-by-chance-that-i-came-out-of-prison-alive-g-n-saibaba>” that he is coming out of jail alive. This is the second time in two years that the Nagpur bench has acquitted Saibaba and others. On October 14, 2022, the same court, comprising of Justice Rohit B. Deo and Anil Pansare had overturned the Gadchiroli session court’s judgement. Barring Vijay Tikri, who was convicted to ten years rigorous punishment, the others were awarded life sentences. In 2022, discharging all five accused, Justice Deo had observed that the due process of law cannot be sacrificed at the altar of “perceived peril to national security”. The bench directed the convicts to be released forthwith from jail unless they are accused in any other case. The defence lawyers appearing for Saibaba and others had challenged the validity of the sanction order issued to prosecute under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They had relied on Section 41 (A) of the UAPA which clearly states that, “No court shall take cognizance of any offence without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government on this behalf”. The HC in 2022 had called the absence of a valid sanction order as “bad in law and invalid”. Even with the HC’s order, the Nagpur central jail authorities had refused to release them immediately and meanwhile, the state government had rushed to the Supreme Court seeking stay on the order, and had received one.
