Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Merely because a citizen downloads information about communist or Naxal philosophy would not itself be an offence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Bombay High Court observed in the judgement acquitting Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba for his alleged links with Maoists.

“It is by now common knowledge that one can access a huge amount of information from the website of Communist or Naxal philosophy, their activities including videos and video footage of even violent nature; Merely because a citizen downloads this material or even sympathizes with the philosophy, would itself not be an offence unless there is specific evidence led by the prosecution to connect an active role shown by the accused with particular incidents of violence and terrorism, which would be offences within the purview of Sections 13, 20 and 39 of the UAPA,” the court said.

The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes, acquitted GN Saibaba and five others on March 5 for their alleged links with Maoists.

The high court was hearing an appeal against the trial court's order convicting GN Saibaba and five others under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In October 2022, the high court acquitted the accused in the case, after which the Supreme Court directed the high court to reconsider the appeal afresh.

In its 293-page judgement, the high court also observed that there was total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA. The sanction accorded to prosecute 5 accused was invalid.

The bench said taking of cognizance by the Trial Court without valid sanction or no sanction to prosecute accused No.6 G.N. Saibaba goes to the root of the case, which renders the entire proceedings null and void.

The division bench also recorded that the documents demonstrated that Saibaba was sympathiser of Maoist philosophy and merely having a particular philosophy is not an offence under UAPA

“The content of these documents if taken cumulatively, would perhaps demonstrate that the accused were sympathisers of a Maoist philosophy or sympathized with the cause of certain tribal groups or certain people who were perceived to be marginalized or disenfranchised, and mere possession of such literature, having a particular political and social philosophy by itself is not contemplated as an offence under the UAPA,” the judgement states.

The high court has observed that there is no evidence brought forth by the prosecution to connect the persons in these videos with any actual act of terrorism that had taken place in the past.

“The content of the speeches may portray dissent or criticism or even a streak of militancy, but by themselves, the content of these videos do not in any manner portray any acts of “terrorism” contained in the various provisions of the UAPA. In fact, there is no evidence brought forth by the prosecution to connect the persons in these videos with any actual act of terrorism which had taken place in the past or to demonstrate how the persons in the video were directly connected with and responsible for the commission of any other act of terrorism,” the bench said.

The high court also recorded that playing several videos or requesting the court to read through hundreds of pages of literature does not constitute evidence. The bench said that there should have been specific evidence led through witnesses to connect with the making out of an offence.

The high court has also rejected the state government’s plea to stay the judgement. The state government has also filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the judgement of the high court.

Case title: GN Saibaba & Ors vs State of Maharashtra