Former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The death of G N Saibaba, former Delhi University professor, who was acquitted by the court a few months ago after he had spent 10 years in jail facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), is an indictment of the State and an unflattering reflection on the system of justice. He was a person who had 90% disability and was confined to a wheelchair, and died on Saturday due to complications following a surgery for gall bladder stones. At 57 years of age, the death was untimely, and could in no small measure be attributed to the long incarceration in a cramped cell that he suffered. The almost-invalid man was repeatedly denied bail and treated as a terrorist and convicted criminal, and had to wage a long struggle through various courts to finally secure release and a validation of his innocence from the court.
Saibaba was arrested in May 2014 by the Maharashtra government and charged with alleged Maoist links. From the beginning, there were questions about the arrest and the charges under the draconian UAPA which were slapped on him. He was convicted by a trial court three years later but the Mumbai High Court set aside the order. This was five years after the conviction. On the government’s appeal a special bench of the Supreme Court sat on a Saturday to stay the High Court order and subsequently sent the case back to the High Court. The High Court stuck to the previous ruling and sharply criticised the government for its failure to provide any evidence in support of the charges. The court ruled that merely “downloading material about the philosophy of Naxalism” or even “sympathising” with the ideology cannot invite arrest under the UAPA.
The tragic life of Saibaba underlines the viciousness of the system and its fault-lines which make an individual a hapless victim of State power. Arbitrary use of that power should ideally have been curbed by the system of justice. But the system failed Saibaba multiple times, and by the time it gave him justice, he had lost 10 years of his life. Every citizen is ideally protected by fundamental rights, but there is many a slip between the real life of a citizen and his rights. Saibaba’s loss cannot be measured by the 10 years that he spent in jail alone. He lost his job, got separated from his family and the world, and the incarceration took a toll on his health and life. Worst of all, a whole gullible, or disinterested, nation believed that he must indeed be a Naxal extremist since he had been picked up by the authorities, the immense pain of which reflected in his poems and letters from jail to his wife. The conclusion that a determined government can punish an innocent person, despite the existence of laws and the courts to protect him, is unsettling.