An unravelling: On the Malegaon acquittals

The Hindu

a day ago

The 2008 Malegaon blast, killing six and injuring 95 others, during Ramzan, was an extreme act of terror. The initial investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) posited a chilling conspiracy by Hindutva extremists to exact revenge through a 'blast for a blast', emulating the polarising methods of Islamist terror groups. This narrative seemed solidified by circumstantial evidence, including electronic transcripts of secret meetings and a confession by Sangh Parivar activist Aseemanand. The case was politically fraught from the start. The ATS investigation was a pivotal moment, as it sought to identify perpetrators irrespective of religion, especially after Muslim youth were wrongly charged and later acquitted in the 2006 Malegaon blasts. However, this unbiased approach appeared to falter with the consolidation of Hindutva political power. After the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the agency filed a supplementary charge sheet. Amid allegations that the NIA was under pressure to be lenient, a Special Court rightly ruled in 2018 that a full trial was the best course. Seventeen years later, the final acquittal of all accused, including Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit and Pragya Singh Thakur, leaves a profound sense of unease. Far from refuting the existence of Hindutva-led extremism, the judgment is an indictment of the prosecution's methods and a reminder of how justice can be undone.
The court exposed a foundation of unreliable evidence, noting that key witnesses turned hostile, alleging coercion by the ATS — a claim also noted by the NIA. The explosive electronic transcripts were deemed inadmissible for failing to meet mandatory legal safeguards against tampering. The court also rejected the defence of Purohit, who argued that he was a military intelligence officer infiltrating the group, but acquitted him as the evidence failed to meet what it saw as the legal standard for a conviction. The political circumstances suggest a consistent attempt to reframe the alleged acts of terror not as criminal, but with a communal narrative. In 2019, while still under trial for grave terror charges, Pragya Thakur was fielded as a parliamentary candidate by the Bharatiya Janata Party and won from Bhopal. Her political elevation as a Hindutva icon was precisely because of her purported role in fomenting retaliatory attacks against Muslims. Her subsequent career, marked by an endorsement of Mahatma Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse, has only confirmed the dangerous mainstreaming of extremist voices. The acquittal lays bare the unsettling reality that when state agencies fail, extremist organisations can get away with heinous crimes. Terror has no single religious face and, without a competent and scrupulous policing, prosecution and justice system, its perpetrators, whoever they may be, can walk free.