This is the second time in two years that the high court has acquitted him and others of all charges. On October 14, 2022, a division bench, comprising Justice Rohit B. Deo and Anil Pansare, overturned the Gadchiroli session court’s judgment. The state immediately moved the Supreme Court, and eventually, the high court’s verdict was overturned. Justice Deo resigned soon after. The case was freshly heard on the apex court’s direction, and once again, the very same court, comprising Justice Vinay G. Joshi and Justice Valimiki S. Menezes, acquitted Saibaba and others.

The trial in the lower court was handled by Nagpur-based human rights lawyer Surendra Gadling. Soon after the trial was completed in the Gadchiroli sessions court, Gadling was arrested in the Elgar Parishad case. Saibaba, on Thursday, said that his lawyer Gadling was targeted only for handling his case.

“A lawyer who has all along fought for justice, who has represented hundreds and thousands of Dalits and Adivasis from the region in court, and such a man is in jail. If justice has to be fully achieved in my case, then Gadling should be released,” he said.

by Sukanya Shantha


'The prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of incriminating material from the house search of G.N. Saibaba," the judges said. "The prosecution has also failed to prove the electronic evidence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Information Technology Act."

In its detailed judgment acquitting former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba and five others of ‘terrorism’ charges, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has virtually shredded the state’s case against the six to pieces. Noting that fatal violations occurred in the manner in which sanction to prosecute was granted – a key statutory safeguard in India’s otherwise draconian terrorism  law – the court also rejected key claims made by the prosecution in the case, noting that they were not supported by evidence. 
by Sukanya Shantha

 PUCL is outraged by and strongly condemns the cold-blooded shooting down by a 3-member gang of politician and former minister, Atiq Ahmed and his brother, Ashraf Ahmed, at about 1030 pm on 15.04.2023 in Prayagraj (Allahabad) Government Hospital, in public and in the full glare of the media.

What is most deplorable is that Atiq and Ashraf, were surrounded by an armed team of policemen who allowed a set of media persons to interview them, when the 3 killers came to the spot in motorcycles, whipped out sophisticated guns and shot the brothers in cold blood at point blank range, with the armed police remaining as mute spectators doing nothing to prevent the slaughter.

This position of the UP government led by Yogi Adityanath which asserts that criminals are not entitled to the rule of law is antithetical to the values of the Constitution. To those in the public who support this amoral position that ‘gangsters’ should not be entitled to the benefits of rule of law, one should note that once an exception is made in the grand edifice of rule of law, there will be others who, the state will argue, don’t deserve the protection of `rule of law’. If this trend is not checked the state will feel emboldened to opt for vigilante justice, including extra judicial executions, against all those questioning its actions and policies. The ground for this has been prepared through the relentless delegitimisation of all dissent, dubbing those who are exercising the right to free speech as ‘anti-nationals’.

We appeal to right thinking citizens concerned about the total breakdown of constitutional order to stand up and raise their voices to condemn state lawlessness. We also appeal to the Supreme Court of India to take up the matter suo motu, considering the grave repercussions the matter can pose for the rule of law in the country. Full statement >

According to Bar and Bench, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the government to refrain from cancelling his OCI card until the next date of hearing. The cancellation would have led to his deportation due to the cancellation of his visa. 

However, the interim protection was subject to Kumar filing an affidavit, within the next four days, affirming that he would “encourage restraint on the tweets qua judiciary and matters that are sub-judice and further undertakes that he would delete the tweets that are against the judiciary and matters that are sub-judice”.


The Supreme Court has significantly overruled its 2011 judgement holding that mere membership of banned associations is not sufficient to constitute an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act offence but that it needs to be accompanies with overt violence.

In an order which could have far reaching impact, a bench of Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol also upheld Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, reported LiveLaw. The section deems that membership of an association which has been declared to be unlawful is an offence.

The bench also said that the earlier bench had made a “mistake” by relying on US Supreme Court judgments, as the right to freedom of speech and association as per the Indian Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions.