A Mumbai sessions court warned TISS students accused in the Saibaba memorial FIR that the criminal case could seriously affect their future careers, while extending interim protection from arrest as anticipatory bail hearings remain pending.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: A Mumbai sessions court on Monday cautioned students of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) who are facing criminal proceedings over an unauthorised campus event commemorating the first death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba, warning that the case could have serious and lasting consequences on their future careers. At the same time, the court extended the interim protection from arrest earlier granted to the accused students.
The observations were made by Additional Sessions Judge Manoj B. Oza while hearing anticipatory bail pleas filed by nine TISS students, who have been booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The students are accused of unlawful assembly, acts allegedly disturbing public order, and promotion of enmity.
The case arose from a memorial programme on October 12, 2025, organised at the Deonar campus of TISS, marking the first death anniversary of Professor G N Saibaba. Saibaba, an English literature professor at the University of Delhi, had been arrested in May 2014 by the Maharashtra Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).
He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court in Gadchiroli in March 2017. However, the Bombay High Court acquitted him twice, most recently in March 2024, citing serious irregularities in the sanction and deficiencies in the evidence. Following the acquittal, Saibaba was released after spending nearly a decade in custody. He later passed away in October 2024 at a hospital in Hyderabad due to health complications.
According to the police, the memorial programme was conducted without prior permission from the institute authorities. The FIR further alleges that slogans were raised during the event in support of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, former JNU students who are currently incarcerated in connection with cases arising out of the 2020 Delhi riots.
Based on these allegations, Trombay police registered an FIR the day after the event, acting on a complaint filed by an associate dean of TISS. Nine students were named as accused, while the complaint also mentioned the involvement of several unidentified individuals.
The police have invoked multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences relating to unlawful assembly and deliberate provocation likely to disturb public tranquility, along with provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act.
During the hearing, Judge Oza addressed the students directly and emphasised that the registration of an FIR was not a “minor issue.” He noted that criminal cases remain permanently reflected in law-enforcement databases and often surface during background verification processes.
The court observed that such records could adversely impact employment prospects, not only in government services but also in the private sector. The judge further remarked that merely holding postgraduate qualifications, including degrees such as a Master’s in Social Work, would not shield the students from the stigma associated with pending criminal proceedings.
The court also pointed out that the families of the accused would inevitably become aware of the case and that the consequences could follow the students long after they complete their education.
As part of the ongoing investigation, the police have seized electronic devices belonging to the accused students. During the proceedings, the prosecution informed the court that some of the applicants had failed to remain present on a previous date in December 2025.
Counsel appearing for the students, however, assured the court that the applicants would fully cooperate with the investigation, comply with all directions issued by the court, and ensure their presence on future dates without default.
After hearing both sides, the sessions court adjourned further arguments on the anticipatory bail pleas to a later date. However, the court ordered that the interim protection from arrest granted earlier would continue until the next hearing.