Salutes and Apologies Vasanta ji and Professor GN Saibaba!

The last we met and briefly held hands was outside AKG Bhavan, Delhi where he, with his usual gentle resolve had been wheeled by dear wife, Vasanta to pay tribute to Sitaram Yechury, general secretary of the CPI-M. That was September 14, 2024, Sita had left us two days before, exactly a month before Saibaba did, on September 12, 2024. On Saturday, October 12, 2024, the 54 year old professor of English died of “complications following a gall bladder surgery at one of Hyderabad’s known hospitals.”

Immediately, I had to say something publicly, react. “Who answers for this life lost, unaccountability & callousness? #GNSaibaba We owe you….” is what I said on X.

Who answers for this life lost, unaccoutability & callousness? #GNSaibaba We owe you…. pic.twitter.com/6iI7j99yan

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) October 12, 2024

Professor GN Saubaba had stubbornly refused to die despite every effort by the brute Nagpur jail authorities, on instructions of the political executive, to ensure every indignity heeped on this physically frail and handicapped man. After being accused and convicted of all kinds of manipulated charges including under the draconian anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and convicted to life imprisonment on March 7, 2017 he was first acquitted on October 14, 2022 by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, only for a superior court to ensure further jail term. Saibaba’s poem penned at the time was and is a source of sorrowful inspiration. On August 5, 2023, the Bombay high court judge Justice Rohit B Deo (former Advocate General, Maharashtra from 2016 to 2017) — who had acquitted Professor GN Saibaba—resigned,  a full two years a four months before he was due to retire on December 4, 2025. Though citing personal reasons to be the cause, in his statement before the court while he made farewell remarks in open court, he did say, “I can’t work against my self-respect.” After the Supreme Court’s “interventions” at this stage, the Bombay high court again acquitted Saibaba and others on March 5, 2024, observing that holding a trial under UAPA without adhering to procedural requirements would amount to a “failure to justice”. Professor Saibaba’s wife Vasanta Kumari who valiantly stood by him through all these multiple violations of the Constitution and law had, with him, a beaming smile, when he finally was wheeled out free from the Nagpur Central Jail on March 7, 2024.

Saibaba’s death after a critical surgery at the age of 54 raises questions for which there will be, likely no answers. A former professor of the Department of English, University of Delhi and a prominent figure in the struggle for democratic rights and the defence of the marginalised, Prof. Saibaba, was 90 percent disabled and wheelchair-bound. What had he been accused of, charges that he was, after a bitter ten long years, acquitted? Of being “a member of the banned Maoist party on flimsy grounds of having some Maoist literature in his house.” There was no other evidence and yet, he had been incarcerated eight and a half years ago and had been kept in conditions which utterly disregarded his physical condition and resulted in continuing deterioration of his health. Little regard was paid to his need for proper medical attention. Finally, almost too late, the Maharashtra High Court acquitted him of all charges and he was discharged recently. However, his condition could not take the stress of gall bladder surgery and he passed away due to haemorrhage and cardiac arrest. Saibaba had said on release from Nagpur jail on March 6, “When I went to prison, I had no ailment other than my disability. Now, my heart is 55% functional…live, gallbladder and pancreas have also been affected. My right hand is partially functional. My doctor says I need multiple surgeries.”

Who will pay for this state-driven negligence?

In any civilised society –and electoral democracies mandated by the sovereign will of the people certainly claim that label—there should be an independent inquiry into such a death, at the very least. So that those guilty jailors and Superintendents of Nagpur prison face rebuke, real punishment. And we as citizens with the sovereign authority are informed of who exactly in the executive ordered such treatment. Prof. Saibaba’s death has therefore also been called nothing short of an institutional murder as was Father Stan Swamy’s on July 5, 2021.  On July 5, 2021 Stan Swamy had died of cardiac arrest, complications from COVID-19, Parkinson’s, also a victim of dismal and unaccountable Taloja jail prison conditions.

The Indian state, and judiciary, which failed not only to protect his fundamental right to a dignified life, actually also subjected him to the most cruel and inhuman conditions of incarceration, denying him even the basic medical attention.

His own words best express both his life, treatment in jail and death.

Saibaba’s poem from jail in 2017

When I refused to die
my chains were loosened
I came out
Into the vast meadows
Smiling at the leaves of grass
My smile caused intolerance in them
I was shackled again
Again, when I refused to die
tired of my life
my captors released me
I walked out
into the lush green valleys under the rising sun
smiling at the tossing blades of grass
Infuriated by my undying smile
They captured me again
I still stubbornly refuse to die
The sad thing is that
They don’t know how to make me die
Because I love so much
The sounds of growing grass

November 2017. (Remembering October 1917)

G N Saibaba, life convict, Anda Cell, Nagpur Jail

What does all of this, in any real sense mean? As we pen our thoughts and tributes to this extraordinary man, whom the Delhi University refused to re-instate as professor even after his acquittal, first we must recall that though Professor G N Saibaba died a free man, acquitted of all charges, he could not savour the sounds of freedom for even a year.

Here was a man 90 % physically challenged who survived solitary confinement –three stretches at a time—for a total of eight and a half years. He was deprived of his essential mode of mobility, the wheelchair in the Nagpur’s Central Jail, a wheelchair that he had been dependant on since childhood. Medicines essential to his treatment for 19 ailments were denied him as was a simple bland diet and other medical treatment. This despite the fact that when he was arrested for the second time, in December 2015, on orders of the Gadchiroli sessions court, Professor Saibaba was due for pancreatic surgery and a delay would lead to infection, which his doctors had warned.

Confined to solitary confinement, the Anda Cell (reserved for the most dangerous persons!), itself an acknowledged form of mental torture, he was in jail in Nagpur, a city in Maharashtra with hot summers and cold, cold winters. Even when sharp pains seared his body in winter, jail authorities refused to allow him warm clothes sent by his family. In a letter to his wife, A S Vasanta Kumari, from prison in November 2017, eight months after having been convicted for life under the anti-terrorist act UAPA, he had baldly said, “I am living like an animal.” The callous unaccountability by the jail authorities continued until the very end leading to an open letter, in December 2020 by his lawyer to the jail authorities saying that ‘Saibaba’s future was in his hands.’

Among all the questions that should bother our Courts is this one, “How long is too long a period of incarceration as an under trial for a court to conclude the right of speedy trial is defeated?”  It was the Delhi High Court in Mohamed Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623, who had thus queried,  though that was in the context of grant of bail for an undertrial prisoner. As India today ignominiously boasts of over 4, 00,000 under trials –several thousand of which have served terms way beyond the punitive terms they are charged with, Saibaba’s death reminds us of a state’s complete collapse. Apart from Saibaba, there are other political prisoners, Delhi Riots cases 2020 (Umar Khalid we know and speak of often, Gulfishan Faitima less so), Orissa, Chhattisgarh that point a finger at us and the higher judiciary. Is it not about time that High Court and Supreme Court Judges, step out of their courts and chambers and visit the Jails in their jurisdiction? Meet and speak to under trials and convicted, interrogate and examine why some of their Orders on Bail and Release are simply not implemented on the ground.

More of such ruminations, point by point, later. This one is about Professor GN Saibaba. So I will end this guilt-filled remembrance with the poem tweeted by fellow journalist, Saubaba, today, October 15.

When you remove Saibaba’s eyes,

Please add a touch of gentleness,

For in them lie traces of the world he dreamt of,

That might unfold within someone else.

Please extract his heart with utmost skill,

For in that tenacious heart that denied death

In the fascist Manuvadi regime’s prison,

You may find the roots of tender compassion

For the Adivasis and the oppressed masses.

In constant captivity, grappling with illness,

He stood firm for his beliefs.

Please check, perhaps, those polio-stricken legs

Could leave a mark on the faces

Of the chameleon activists who preach a new ideology every day.

One more, final request…

Please preserve that brain even more carefully for the future generations,

For though ninety percent disabled,

His “thinking mind” made this exploitative system tremble with fear.

Someday, it may help someone identify the system’s weak link.

Janjerla Ramesh Babu

President, Telangana Forum Against Displacement

(With a heart burdened by sorrow for the sudden martyrdom of Comrade G.N. Saibaba…)

Related:

GN Saibaba wheeled out of Nagpur Central Jail on March 7 two days after the Bombay HC resoundingly acquitted him & 5 others in…

Protesting for release of GN Saibaba, Delhi students ‘assaulted’ by ABVP, cops

Prof GN Saibaba Case: Supreme Court to hear Maharashtra Govt’s appeal against HC’s discharge order on Jan 17

Unprecedented, Abnormal, SC order of ‘suspension’ of sentence in GN Saibaba case

SC Staying acquittal of Prof. Saibaba and 5 others sets a dangerous precedent: PUCL

The post When the state turns rogue even protests dry up, Salutes & Apologies Professor Saibaba! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay HC, overturned the 2017 Trial Court judgment, both on the basis of the merits and procedural lapses. It reiterated its earlier position on procedural safeguards and found the investigating agency violating rules for valid seizure of evidence and also suspected the possibility of tampering of evidence due to poor handling of evidence and apparent fudging of official records.

The court also came out strongly against thought policing of individuals and relying on the judgement in Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge Vs. State of Maharashtra, said that a particular ideology or political philosophy (which may be inferred from seized literature or other material) cannot be treated as a crime in itself. Along with Jyoti Chorge, it also relied on the ratio of Thwaha Fasal and Vernon vs State of Maharashtra to emphasise that mere association with a terrorist organisation (passive membership) is not sufficient to attract the relevant provisions of UAPA unless it is accompanied by intention and support to further the activities of such organisation. After refusing to consider political literature as valid evidence, the court also dismissed the video ‘evidence’.

Long walk to freedom

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High after considering the matter afresh delivered its judgement on March 5, 2024, acquitting all the accused charged under UAPA.

The speaking order observed that, “In fact since the prosecution has failed to establish the electronic evidence in accordance with law, the said material need not be gone into as an evidence in this case.”[1] Even on the basis of merits the said ‘evidence’ were found be inadequate in the eyes of the court and the bench dismissed it to be considered as legal evidence. Analysing the ‘evidence’ of the prosecution the court noted, “Perusing these and various other literature contained in the hard disk, as claimed to have been seized from Accused No.6, the contents of these documents read and understood by any person, by themselves would not constitute an offence under Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 or 39. The documents relate to the period from the year 2006 to the year 2012, ranging for a period of 1 year to 7 years prior to registering the FIR”.

On Video Evidence (March 2024)

The court was sharply critical of the shoddy investigation of the prosecution and noted, “…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…”[2] It further lambasted the State for invoking the charge of conspiracy and said, “In order to attract the offence of conspiracy, besides vague allegations that they have conspired to wage war against the Government or advocated arms struggle, there is no other material.”[3]

The court concluded that, “In our view, there is total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA. The sanction accorded to prosecute Accused Nos.1 to 5 is invalid. 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… We hold that the trial held despite violation of mandatory provisions of law itself amounts to failure of justice”[4].

The Maharashtra government has already challenged this decision in the Supreme Court even though the High Court has refused to stay its order, noting that the matter affects personal liberty of the citizens.

This order of the Bombay High Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 136 & 137 of 2017.

The tragic take of Professor GN Saibaba and others: a background

The former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba was first arrested on May 9, 2014 by the Maharashtra police on charges of entering into a criminal conspiracy with senior Naxal commanders Narmadakka and Ramdhar, and was charged with various draconian sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) dealing with conspiracy, and membership of ‘a terrorist gang or organisation’. Hem Mishra, the then student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested by the police in 2013 in the case of Naxalite involvement and had named Saibaba as an “urban contact” for the banned Maoists.

Convicted by the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli District in this case of Maoist involvement in 2017, Saibaba and others had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Only one of the accused received a lesser sentence. Other accused in the case are Pandu Pora Narote, who died in August 2022, Mahesh Tirki, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vinay Nan Tirki, Live Law reported[5]. Saibaba has been accused by the prosecution of working with Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), believed to be a frontal organisation for the banned Communist Party of India (Marxist).

The decade long battle for justice for Saibaba was marked with particular apathy even brutality by the Nagpur jail authorities given the fact that Saibaba is 90% disabled and suffers from several comorbidities. His incarceration was thus marked by consistent failure by jail authorities to provide him adequate health support. Sabrang India had reported repeatedly in 2020, 2021 and 2022 how his exasperated lawyer, Akash Sorde had publicly told the Nagpur jail superintendent that “the staff even refused to accept warm caps, a handkerchief, towel, napkin, T-shirt, a medical hand weight that Saibaba needs for physiotherapy and shampoo. ‘Given the bone chilling cold that whole of Nagpur is facing at the moment, I fail to understand how else do you expect my client to save himself from cold,’”. Reportedly, he is suffering from 19 medical ailments.

The incarceration had caused international outrage with the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commission had issued the statement concerning the inhumane detention of Saibaba, the statement read, “‘Mr. Saibaba has been detained in a high security ‘anda barracks’ in conditions incompatible with his status as a wheelchair user. His 8×10 feet cell has no window and one wall made of iron bars, exposing him to extreme weather, especially in the scorching summer heat,’”.[6] In the meantime, he was also removed from his post of assistant professor from Delhi University’s Ram Lal Anand College in 2021.

The labyrinth of trial: How the process became the punishment

GN Saibaba along with other accused were first convicted in March 2017 by the Sessions Court at Gadchiroli District under Section 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Session Court judge Suryakant Shinde wrote in his order that “It is proved that accused No.1 Mahesh Tirki, no.2 Pandu Narote and no.4 Prashant Rahi in pursuance to the  criminal conspiracy with accused no.3 Hem Mishra and no.6 Saibaba were found in  possession of naxal literatures, pamphlets, letters, correspondence, audio­video, electronic material which were to be used for inciting the people to create violence to cause public disorder and accused no.1 Mahesh Tirki, no.2 Pandu Narote and no.5 Vijay Tirki were receiving the members of banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and its frontal organization RDF and were taking them safely and secretly to forest area within the Gadchiroli district to meet absconding underground naxals”[7]. All the accused except Vijay Tirke received life imprisonment sentences, Tirke received rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.

In March 2016, when the trial was still ongoing at Gadchiroli Sessions Court, the Supreme Court granted bail to Saibaba on medical grounds and reprimanded the Maharashtra government for opposing his bail plea after his bail application was rejected by the Bombay HC and said that the State has been extremely unfair to the accused to oppose his bail, especially given his medical condition[8]. Due to his deteriorating health conditions, the Bombay High Court had earlier granted him interim bail from June 2015 to December 2015 to receive medical treatment.

These orders may be read here.

Despite these orders by the High Court of Bombay, Saibaba had to consistently suffer due to lack of proper care being provided by the Nagpur Central Jail authority and it became a battle in itself to secure bail when charged under stringent UAPA law. The SC bench led by Justice J S Khehar while hearing Saibaba’s bail plea in February 2016 had directed the Maharashtra government to provide adequate amenities to Saibaba, it ordered the State, “We want you (state) to make him comfortable. Tell us how you will make him comfortable. You cannot have him in solitary confinement,” Indian Express reported.

These Orders may be read here:

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 249/2016, Item No.44

Responding to Saibaba’s conviction in 2017 under the UAPA case, his lawyer Rebecca John had noted that UAPA turns mere thought into crime, the trial court had held that he was a Maoist, and accused him of idolising the Naxalbari uprising of 1967 and promoting and propagating communist ideology, Scroll reported. John was quoted as saying, “it seemed that the state was ‘trying to enter the mind of a person, into what his ideology is’”. Previously, his bail pleas were rejected by the Bombay HC in 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020 on the ground that offences were serious in nature, even while he was suffering from various medical conditions.

Small victory with the progressive Bombay HC verdict

For his immediate family and the larger community of advocates and human rights defenders, a sigh of release came on October 14, 2022 when the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court acquitted all the accused, including GN Saibaba of the charges under UAPA and set aside the Trail Court judgement for violating due process of law.

The order delivered by Justice Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare pointed out that, “In view of the findings recorded by us, we hold that the proceedings in Sessions Trials 30/2014 and 130/2015 are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, and the common judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, which we do order”. Section 45 (1) of UAPA requires prior sanction from the Central or State Government or the officer nominated by the concerned government to begin proceeding under UAPA. In the present case the prosecution had already arrested Saibaba under UAPA and the Trial Court had begun framing the charges of UAPA even before the sanction was granted on April 6, 2015. This not only violates the provision of UAPA, but also go against the rule of law and due process, both part of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The High Court pointed out that in the present case, issue related to both absence of sanction and absence of valid sanction. It directed the attention of the State to show that under UAPA, after the amendment in 2008, it was necessary that an independent authority reviews the evidence against the accused in an independent manner before recommending the sanction. The report prepared by this independent authority should be substantial enough to guide the prosecution to take the further call. This is the second count on which the sanction was found to be invalid, as the perusal of the report prepared by independent authority revealed that the report in no way aided the prosecution in determining whether the charges under UAPA were justified or not. The bench said that the report lacked application of mind and recorded that “sanction is not a ritualistic formality nor is an acrimonious exercise. Sanction is a solemn and sacrosanct act which lifts the bar and empowers the Court to take cognizance of offence. Sanction serves the salutary object of providing safeguard to the accused from unwarranted prosecution and the agony and trauma of trial, and in the context of the stringent provisions of the UAPA, is an integral facet of due process of law”.

The Bombay High court in this order had emphasised the importance of procedure safeguards, especially in the context of UAPA, and said, “…While the war against terror must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve, and every legitimate weapon in the armoury must be deployed in the fight against terror, 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 alter of perceived peril to national security. The siren song that the end justifies the means, and that 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”. The court dismissed the argument of the State that the infirmity in obtaining the sanction was curable, but remarked that “the rule against double jeopardy has no application if the trial is held vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction”. The Bombay High Court was careful enough to note that the order passed by this court is purely on basis of the procedural consideration and has no bearing on the merit of the case.

This detailed order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2017,

The victory that did not last

The Maharashtra government immediately challenged the Bombay High Court order acquitting the accused the very same day, and in a peculiarly hurried manner approached and succeeded with an urgent hearing in the apex court on the same day. Appearing for the state government, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to stay the acquittal order of the High Court.

Though the Supreme Court did not issue a stay order the same day, it nonetheless urgently listed the matter next day (Saturday) on October 15, 2022 before the bench of Justice M R Shah and Bela Trivedi.

The move raised the eyebrows, as Saturdays are non-working days for the Supreme Court, and the urgency shown was clearly to obstruct the liberty of citizens. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government of Maharashtra, argued that mere procedural lapse or irregularity in obtaining sanction cannot be the ground for granting bail if the accused were already convicted by the Trail Court based on merit and detailed analysis of the evidence on record. He referred to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to argue that the High Court could not have reversed or altered a sentence based on any error or irregularity in the sanction obtained to prosecute an accused unless it had considered whether the accused raised an objection regarding this irregularity during the original proceedings, SCC reported.

The Supreme Court, commenting on what it considered were the infirmities in the impugned order and thereafter observed that the Bombay High Court had not gone into the merits of the case, and acquitted the accused merely on the procedural grounds even though the accused (Saibaba) had argued the case on the basis of merits as well. The SC concurred with Mr. Mehta and said that further consideration is needed in this regard considering the provision of Section 465 of CrPC. Secondly, the SC order also suggested that since the Trial Court has already tried the case on the basis of merit and detailed analysis of the evidence (even if it has violated the procedural rules), it is safer to rely its judgement, at least in the interim, given the serious nature of the offences against “the sovereignty and integrity of the country”.

Thereafter, the SC quite unceremoniously suspended the Bombay High Court judgment acquitting the accused, while completely ignoring the violation of procedural safeguards and due process of law. Additionally, the bail plea for Saibaba was rejected alongside.

The SC finally set aside the High Court ruling on April 19, 2023, and asked it to reconsider the matter afresh, without commenting on the merits of the case. This judgement indeed proves that the maxim of “bail and not jail” remains completely upended for people charged under stringent anti-terror laws like UAPA.

This controversial order of the Supreme Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1184-1185 of 2023,

Acquitted for the second time on March 5, Professor GN Saibaba was released from the Nagpur Central Jail on March 7, by 12 noon.

[1] Prateek Goyal, “Disabled, Unwell but an Enemy of the State”, The Wire, 23 May, 2015. https://thewire.in/politics/disabled-unwell-but-an-enemy-of-the-state

[2] Amisha Shrivastava, “Bombay High Court Acquits GN Saibaba & 5 Others In Alleged Maoist Links Case”, Live Law, 5 March, 2024. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-acquits-gn-saibaba-5-others-in-alleged-maoist-links-case-orders-immediate-release-251271?infinitescroll=1

[3] “GN Saibaba’s lawyer claims Nagpur jail officials refused essentials he brought for him”, Scroll, 25 December, 2020. https://scroll.in/latest/982339/gn-saibabas-lawyer-claims-nagpur-jail-officials-refused-essentials-he-brought-for-him

[4] Sonam Saigal, “Five years on, no relief for jailed Delhi University professor Saibaba”, The Hindu, 9 May, 2019. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/five-years-on-no-relief-for-jailed-delhi-university-professor-saibaba/article27084472.ece

[5] “India must end inhumane detention of human rights defender GN Saibaba: UN expert”, OHCHR, 21 August 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/india-must-end-inhumane-detention-human-rights-defender-gn-saibaba-un-expert

[6] “GN Saibaba removed as assistant professor from Delhi University’s Ram Lal Anand College”, Scroll, 2 April 2021. https://scroll.in/latest/991267/gn-saibaba-removed-as-assistant-professor-from-delhi-universitys-ram-lal-anand-college

[7] S.C.No.13/2014 & 130/2015, https://gadchiroli.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiTUhHQTAxMDAwMTYzMjAxNCIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoxMCwib3JkZXJfZGF0ZSI6IjIwMTctMDMtMDcifQ=

[8] Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 249/2016, Item No.44, https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/courtnic/rop/2016/904/rop_570065.pdf

Related:

Dr. GN Saibaba hospitalised after his health deteriorates due to hunger strike

Wheelchair-bound paralysed prisoner GN Saibaba was on a hunger strike for 10 days!

Why did Nagpur Central Jail refuse to accept essentials sent for Professor Saibaba? 

On what basis has GN Saibaba been sacked from DU?

Prof. Saibaba’s health worsening after Covid-19: Wife Vasantha demands his release

Professor G N Saibaba tests Covid-19 positive in Nagpur jail

Release Prof. Saibaba NOW!

Concerned about GN Saibaba’s frail health after his hunger strike: Vasantha Kumari

Wheelchair-bound paralysed prisoner GN Saibaba was on a hunger strike for 10 days!

The post GN Saibaba wheeled out of Nagpur Central Jail on March 7 two days after the Bombay HC resoundingly acquitted him & 5 others in Maoist links case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 10, a day observed across the world as the International Day of Human Rights, the Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr. G N Saibaba has reiterated its demand for the release of the veteran human rights defender who is not only ailing and disabled, but is being virtually held as a political prisoners, merely for his human rights advocacy work.

The Committee, Chaired by Prof. G. Haragopal, reiterated its demand that the State should uphold the Rights of Prisoners and release Dr. G.N. Saibaba, former Professor of English at University of Delhi. Prof Saibaba has been lodged in what is called an “Anda cell” of the Nagpur Central Jail in Maharashtra for over four and a half years. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by Gadchiroli Session Court under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This was seen as an attempt by the State to silence a vociferous advocate of human rights who has worked tirelessly to demand justice and equality for Dalits, Adivasis, religious and ethnic minorities, and other oppressed and persecuted groups.

The Committee recalled that Dr. Saibaba has “campaigned for the rights of exploited and oppressed sections of our society including Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and other minorities” and in jail is now “unable to move without the help of at least two people.” The Committee shared that he suffers from around 90% physical disability, and additional ailments including “Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension, kidney stones, a cyst in his brain, pancreatic problems and attenuation of the shoulder and arm muscles and nerves resulting in partial paralysis of his upper limbs, most of which developed in jail.” His medical report was recently made available by the jail authorities, only under RTI, and according to the committee an “examination of these medical reports reveals that Dr Saibaba must be given immediate and intensive medical attention, especially for his deteriorating shoulder muscle strength.”

Recently, Scholars at Risk (SAR) Academic Freedom Monitoring Project, recently released its report “Free to Think 2021” which documents 332 attacks on higher education communities in 65 countries and territories It also mentions Professor Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba, and states that he was “wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life in prison on terrorism charges” adding deyails of his medical conditions.

According to the Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr. G N Saibaba, “Since his incarceration, he has not been given proper medical treatment except performing few diagnostic tests” as the Central Jail at Nagpur “does not have proper health and other facilities. In fact, there is an utter disregard for the rights of disabled persons.” Parole applications of Dr. Saibaba have also been rejected thrice by the Jail Authorities, including when his mother passed away a year ago. He was denied parole again, when he wished to attend the one year death anniversary of his mother.

“The Supreme Court of India in various cases has taken a serious note of the inhuman treatment of prisoners. India is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which recognises the inherent dignity of human beings and the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom” stated the committee, adding that “even at the time of incarceration a human being cannot be deprived of his basic rights and his/her inherent dignity must be respected and maintained.” India is a signatory to the United Nations Resolution 70/175 on Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Nelson Mandela Rules). 

On National Human Rights Day, “India has expressed that the countries should follow their constitutional principles,” recalled the Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr. G N Saibaba, seeking his “immediate release” as well as of “all others incarcerated in the same case by giving bail or parole.”

The Committee’s demands are:

• Government of Maharashtra to provide proper medical and other facilities to Dr. G.N. Saibaba.

• Grant parole to him as he is eligible to get parole. Grant bail or parole to the other persons of the same case.

• To shift him from Nagpur Central Jail to Cherlapalli Central Jail, Hyderabad as per request submitted to the Maharashtra Jail Authorities by his family members.

Related:

An attack on one scholar is an attack on all: Scholars at Risk
On what basis has GN Saibaba been sacked from DU?

The post Provide medical facilities, grant parole: Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr. G N Saibaba appeared first on SabrangIndia.