‘Process as Punishment’: Justice Muralidhar Laments Decline of Academic Freedom, Cites Saibaba Case

New Delhi – In a powerful critique of the current state of civil liberties in India, former High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar has raised profound questions about systemic accountability and the erosion of academic freedom, framing the judicial process itself as a form of punishment in politically sensitive cases. Delivering the inaugural Professor G. N. Saibaba Memorial Lecture, Justice Muralidhar used the tragic ordeal of the late Delhi University professor to illustrate a broader trend of suppressing dissent, imposing ideological curricula, and fostering a climate of fear in Indian universities.

"Who will be held accountable for what the system did to a man of learning and forbearance?" This poignant question posed by Justice Muralidhar resonated through his address, encapsulating the decade-long legal battle that ultimately claimed Professor Saibaba's life shortly after his final acquittal. His lecture served as a stark reminder to the legal community of the human cost of procedural delays and the misuse of stringent laws.

The Saibaba Case: A Study in Systemic Failure

At the heart of Justice Muralidhar's speech was a meticulous deconstruction of the case against Professor G. N. Saibaba, a scholar who was 90% disabled due to polio and permanently wheelchair-bound. The prosecution under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was built entirely on electronic evidence, culminating in a 2017 trial court conviction.

Justice Muralidhar detailed the critical legal turning points that followed. On October 14, 2022, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted Professor Saibaba, declaring the entire trial proceedings "null and void." The acquittal was not on merits but on a fundamental procedural flaw: the lack of a valid sanction for prosecution under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, a mandatory prerequisite.

The subsequent events, as recounted by Justice Muralidhar, raised serious concerns about judicial propriety. In an extraordinary move, the State of Maharashtra’s appeal was heard by a special bench of the Supreme Court on a Saturday morning, October 15, 2022, at a judge's residence. The High Court's acquittal was swiftly stayed, and Professor Saibaba, despite his severely deteriorating health, was denied bail and sent back to prison.

Though the High Court acquitted him again in March 2024, this time on the merits of the case, the victory was tragically short-lived. He was released but died soon after surgery, his body, in Justice Muralidhar's words, "badly wrecked by the callous treatment" he endured during incarceration. The case stands as a chilling example of the maxim "the process is the punishment," where years of imprisonment, legal battles, and systemic apathy inflict irreparable harm, irrespective of the final verdict.

India's Alarming Descent in Academic Freedom

Justice Muralidhar contextualized these individual tragedies within a national and global framework, highlighting India's precipitous fall in the Academic Freedom Index (AFI). The 2025 AFI places India in the bottom 10-20% of countries globally, where academic freedom is deemed "completely restricted." This marks a dramatic decline from its 2013 "fully free" status.

According to the index, India now ranks below nations like Hungary, Hong Kong, Sudan, Russia, and Bangladesh, and just above Syria and Iran. Justice Muralidhar pointed to the AFI's analysis, which suggests a strong correlation between the rise of anti-pluralist governing parties and the decline of academic freedom.

To illustrate this "virulent form of totalitarianism," he presented three "real stories, not fiction":

• The Indore Law College Case (2022): An FIR was lodged against Professor Inamul Rahman based on a complaint by an ABVP member for allegedly keeping a "Hindu phobic and antinational book" in the library. Though the Supreme Court quashed the FIR in May 2024, terming it "absurd," the professor had already been forced to resign and received no compensation.

• The Muzaffarnagar School Incident (2023): A teacher was filmed instructing students to slap their seven-year-old Muslim classmate. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of the matter, noted "egregious violations" of the Right to Education (RTE) Act’s provisions against physical and mental harassment.

• The Nanganeri Caste Attack (2023): A 17-year-old Dalit student in Tamil Nadu, who was excelling in his studies, was brutally attacked with sickles by his dominant-caste classmates. The incident exposed the deep-seated caste prejudices that continue to plague educational spaces.

These examples, Justice Muralidhar argued, are symptomatic of a consistent pattern where extremist groups vandalize university departments, disrupt classes, and protest appointments of academics perceived as "left liberal secular," creating an environment where intellectual inquiry is stifled.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

For the legal fraternity, Justice Muralidhar’s lecture is a call to introspect on the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional values. He underscored the duty to cultivate a "scientific temper and the spirit of inquiry" as mandated by Article 51A(H) of the Constitution. The weaponization of laws like the UAPA and IPC sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 295A (outraging religious feelings) against academics and dissenters poses a direct challenge to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

The lecture implicitly questioned the judiciary's balancing act between state security concerns and individual liberty, particularly in the context of UAPA cases where the stringent bail provisions often lead to prolonged pre-trial detention. The special Supreme Court hearing in the Saibaba case, which stayed a High Court acquittal, is likely to be debated for its procedural implications and the precedent it sets.

Concluding on a note of cautious optimism, Justice Muralidhar invoked the spirit of the 1986 Supreme Court judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala . In that landmark case, the Court protected the right of three Jehovah's Witness children to stand respectfully but not sing the national anthem, affirming that "our constitution practices tolerance." This reference served as a powerful reminder that constitutional tolerance and pluralism are the bedrock of Indian democracy and must be actively defended in classrooms, courtrooms, and public discourse.

The questions he left for the audience—how to reclaim secular spaces in universities and how to nurture a spirit of inquiry in young minds—are not merely academic. They are urgent challenges for India's legal and judicial institutions, which are tasked with upholding the constitutional promise of a pluralistic and tolerant society.