Acquittal of Saibaba shows the consequences of departure from the due process of law
The acquittal of Prof GN Saibaba, a 90 per cent disabled, wheelchair bound convict, raises several questions about policing, the justice system, and political interference in criminal investigation. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on October 14, 2022, quashed the case against him and five others and released them. One of the convicts died of swine flu in August. The Sessions Court at Gadchiroli had punished Saibaba with life imprisonment for his alleged association with the proscribed outfit, the Communist Party of India (Maoist), under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The remarks made by the High Court go beyond this particular case in which a group of people suffered for years because of shoddy investigation and miscarriage of justice. “The Siren Song that the end justifies the means, and the procedural safeguards are subservient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by the voice of Rule of Law. Any aberration shall only be counter-productive, since empirical evidence suggests that departure from the due process of law fosters an ecosystem in which terrorism burgeons and provides fodder to vested interests whose singular agenda is to propagate false narrative,” the judgment mentions. The overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished arises when those responsible for bringing the culprit to book are more interested in pleasing their superiors than serving the cause of justice.
When that happens, the rule of law gets replaced with the rule of men and women—that is, the men and women holding high offices. This is the surest sign of descent into medieval horrors, when the law enforcers paid fealty to their feudal masters. The fealty was personal, binding the oath taker to blindly follow the orders of his lord and master. Modern times are different—at least in our country. We have a written Constitution; cops, ministers, etc., take oath to uphold the Constitution, not to protect or further the interests of any person, however powerful they may be. If that oath is not respected in letter and spirit, which might have happened in this case, there can be, in the words of the High Court, departure from the due process of law. This has other consequences as well. It is a well-known fact that Maoists are a threat to internal security; they believe in the violent ideology—political power flows from the barrel of the gun—their ideological guru, Mao Zedong, taught. They have killed thousands of security personnel and citizens over the decades. But when innocent people are victimised in the name of fighting Maoism, the war on Leftwing extremism suffers a setback. For now, action against even real Maoists may appear suspect. Just as political abuse of the Enforcement Directorate can remove the difference between the actual money launderers and political targets. It is time the political class worked to strengthen the rule of law.