The death of Prof. G.N. Saibaba in Hyderabad should haunt our judiciary, which failed to grasp the immense pain he endured. A person with 90% disability, yet steadfast in his convictions, he was unjustly labeled as one of India’s most ‘wanted’ individuals by the state, a characterization upheld by the judiciary. In a democracy, diverse opinions should be respected, and as long as we uphold constitutional values and democratic dissent, these differences can strengthen us.
Prof. Saibaba was arrested on May 9, 2014, under allegations of Maoist links by the Maharashtra police. He was granted bail on medical grounds by the Bombay High Court in June 2015 but remained incarcerated thereafter. Ultimately, he was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in 2017. Tragically, his medical bail petition was denied, and he was not even permitted parole to attend his mother's last rites. A brave advocate for justice, he went on hunger strikes in prison, demanding the installation of CCTV cameras, a request eventually accepted by the High Court.
On October 14, 2022, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted him of all charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). However, this decision was challenged by the government in the Supreme Court, which suspended the ruling and asked the Bombay High Court to reevaluate the case. On March 5, 2024, the Nagpur Bench reaffirmed its judgment and ordered the release of five others arrested alongside him.
Prof. Saibaba’s situation parallels that of Father Stan Swamy, who was similarly denied bail despite serious health issues. This reflects the growing insensitivity within our judicial system, which often seems unable to see beyond the ‘official narrative’. Lower courts frequently do not question authority, while the Supreme Court failed to advocate for the rights of a person with a disability who could have been released on humanitarian grounds. Is it fair for the law to operate on a ‘tit for tat’ philosophy? This same legal system has been known to release mob lynchers, hate mongers, rapists, and murderers without scrutiny.
Prof. Saibaba was confined in the infamous ‘Anda Cell’ in Nagpur jail, where he endured great hardship. The state apparatus understands that those committed to social justice will not yield to oppression; thus, they face not only physical torture but also mental harassment. It’s heartbreaking to consider the humiliation Prof. Saibaba faced in prison, attempting to break his spirit by denying him necessary assistance for mobility.
How can a rule-based order deny older individuals or those with disabilities their right to healthcare and assistance?
It is deeply tragic that a man who lived with integrity and humility was painted as the most dangerous individual in India. The narrative the state constructs reveals clear priorities, as they manipulate public perception. Social media, which was once thought to liberate ideas, is now wielded as a weapon, controlled by capitalists and their propaganda machinery to define who is a ‘nationalist’ and who is not. The apparent lack of sympathy for figures like Prof. Saibaba, Father Stan Swamy, or Umar Khalid among the middle class, intellectuals, and political parties underscores the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that stifles public discourse.
His wife, Vasantha Kumari, deserves commendation for her unwavering support and commitment to fighting for his rights. It is individuals like her who inspire hope. Prof. Saibaba has finally regained his freedom, living without the shackles of state oppression. The deaths of both Prof. G.N. Saibaba and Father Stan Swamy expose the failures of the Indian political class and judiciary. Political parties have largely remained silent, and the judiciary has been unable to rise above the narratives propagated by the right-wing ecosystem, which often fails to acknowledge the aging population and their health issues.
How can a rule-based order deny older individuals or those with disabilities their right to healthcare and assistance? While one need not agree with all perspectives, as citizens of a nation governed by a Constitution founded on principles honoring our most marginalized populations, we must demand that the state and its institutions exhibit sensitivity toward women, the elderly, and the physically challenged. Every individual has the right to a fair defense in court, and it is the state’s responsibility to ensure a level playing field that allows people to present their case.
Prof. G.N. Saibaba, like Father Stan Swamy, fell victim to an insensitivity ingrained in our state system, where the process itself becomes a form of punishment. He is free now, but will his death awaken our system’s conscience, or will it continue to harm individuals through its processes and procedures?
---
*Human rights defender
Comments