2006 Mumbai train blasts: Unpacking Bombay High Court's order
The order came following an urgent appeal by the Maharashtra government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The state argued that the high court's ruling could set a problematic precedent, potentially undermining trials under MCOCA, a stringent law to combat organised crime and terrorism in Maharashtra. Mehta stressed that certain legal findings in the high court's judgment could weaken the prosecution's ability to secure convictions in similar cases.
The SC bench acknowledged the rarity of staying an acquittal, noting that such an action would be a 'rarest of rare' occurrence. The Maharashtra government's swift appeal was driven by political and legal pressures.
Bombay High Court's acquittal
On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted all accused, overturning a 2015 special court judgment that had sentenced five to death and seven to life imprisonment. The 671-page ruling by Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak cited the prosecution's 'utter failure' to prove guilt, citing unreliable evidence, coerced confessions, and systemic investigative lapses, including 'inhuman and barbaric' custodial torture. Within 24 hours, the Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court, which, on July 24, stayed the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC denies bail to key conspirator in 2011 murder of Bhandup eatery
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has denied bail to Amit Madhukar Bhogle, alleged gang leader and key conspirator in the murder of Bhandup-based Chinese food stall owner Suraj Mehra, observing that there was material to show his active involvement in the 'well planned' murder, falling squarely under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). (Shutterstock) Mehra, also known as 'Nepali', was attacked on October 4, 2021 by Sachin Dhananjay Kulkarni alias Chingya and Piyush Priyadarshan Naik while he was heading back home with his friend after closing his eatery. Though his friend survived the attack, Mehra succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead at Mulund General Hospital. The Bhandup police investigated the case initially before it was transferred to the Mumbai crime branch. The police alleged that Mehra and his friend were attacked by members of an organised crime syndicate and Bhogle, arrested on September 28, 2021, was the key conspirator. During the probe, the police found that Bhogle had planned Mehra's murder in collusion with other co-accused including Ramchandra Raut alias Kaka, who coordinated with assailants like Rahul Jadhav, Umesh Kadam and Sushil alias Sada Sawant. The police later invoked the MCOCA against Bhogle and the other co-accused, claiming that the gang led by him was involved in at least 34 criminal cases, among which he was named in 14 cases. Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Sumit Sharma, representing Bhogle, submitted that invocation of the MCOCA against him was legally untenable and unjustified, as there was a delay of nearly one year in granting approval for applying the law. They further contended that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegation of Bhogle being a 'gang leader' or his involvement in the conspiracy or execution of Mehra's murder. Additional public prosecutor Veera Shinde emphasised that Bhogle's conduct was established by a continued criminal tendency. He had long-standing enmity with Mehra and had planned the latter's murder to assert his dominance and control over the locality. There was sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate that Bhogle was not only a conspirator but also played a key role in orchestrating the offence through his gang members, the prosecution said. The material collected by the investigating agency revealed Bhogle's deep-rooted criminal background and his active participation in the offence, they added. The single judge bench of justice Amit Borkar rejected Bhogle's bail application, saying his involvement in the offence did not seem to be merely incidental or peripheral, but integral and connected to the planning and execution. Mehra's murder was meticulously planned and Bhogle had shared pictures of the deceased's mutilated body, the court noted. 'It is particularly disturbing that the accused allegedly shared a photograph of the deceased, showing grievous injuries with his intestines protruding, immediately after the incident, which indicates lack of remorse and a sense of impunity,' the court said. Bhogle was a habitual offender with a long-standing criminal background and the alleged murder fell squarely within the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' under the MCOCA, the court held.
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
End ‘inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered immediate phasing out of hand-driven rickshaws in Maharashtra's hill town of Matheran within six months, observing that continuation of such an inhuman practice in a developing country like India violates human dignity and betrays the constitutional guarantee of social and economic justice to all citizens. End 'inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC Dealing with an issue concerning plying of e-rickshaws in Matheran, one of the few towns in the country where vehicular traffic is prohibited, the top court was informed that to service the transportation needs of about 8 lakh tourists visiting the hill station annually and over 4,000 residents living in the town, hand-driven rickshaws are still in vogue. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai said, 'Continuing such practice even after 78 years of independence and after 75 years of the Constitution being enacted promising social and economic justice to its citizens, would be betraying the promise given by the people of India to themselves.' Granting six months for the state to phase out hand-rickshaw pullers and in the meantime, framing a scheme for their rehabilitation, the court further held, 'We direct the state to forthwith stop plying of hand-held rickshaws in a phased manner and in any case within six months.' The court noted that persons pulling hand-held rickshaws are victims of circumstances who have no alternate source of livelihood and such practices were held to be against the goal of social justice by the top court in a 1980 decision in Azad Rickshaw Pullers union v State of Punjab. 'It is really unfortunate that after 45 years of the decision of this court, the inhuman practice of a human being pulling another human being is still prevalent in the town of Matheran…Permitting such an inhuman practice which is against the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, which is a developing country, belittles the constitutional promise of social and economic justice,' the bench held. The court was conscious that ending this practice will entail depriving them of their source of livelihood. The court noted that with advancement of technology, e-rickshaws are now available which are eco-friendly and operate on batteries. The court directed the Maharashtra government that while evolving a scheme for rehabilitating the hand-held drivers, the state must consider a novel scheme launched by Gujarat government in Kevadia, where e-rickshaw licenses on hire has been provided to local Adivasi women who ferry tourists visiting the town to witness the Statue of Unity - a massive 600-feet statue of Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, and the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court asked the state to consider giving priority to hand-held rickshaw pullers in getting the licenses for e-rickshaws and also consider tribal women among other needy persons in and around Matheran. The court was assisted in passing the order by senior advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the court as amicus curiae who insisted that only 20 e-rickshaws should be permitted for now. The court further permitted laying of paver blocks on the main city road from Kasturi Naka to Shivaji Statue (4-km long stretch) without any concrete bedding to ensure the roads are motorable by rickshaws, horse carts even during monsoons. The hand-held rickshaw pullers and horse-cart pullers were represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Nina Nariman who took the court through the adverse effects of concreting the roads. However, the court permitted no paver blocks on the internal town roads and the trekking route. The court allowed the state to consider sponsoring the e-rickshaw scheme through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative or any other scheme but clarified that non-availability of funds will not be treated as an excuse for not implementing the scheme. Matheran located in the Western Ghats was declared an eco-sensitive zone by the Centre in 2003 and is home to several species of flora and fauna including the bonnet macaque, Hanuman langur, Malabar giant squirrel, and barking deer among others.
United News of India
32 minutes ago
- United News of India
'One human pulling another is inhuman': Supreme Court bans hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran
New Delhi, Aug 6 (UNI) In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court today condemned the continued use of hand-pulled rickshaws, calling the practice inhuman and violative of the right to dignity guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court held that such manual labor, which involves a human being pulling another, must be abolished immediately, especially after 78 years of Independence and 75 years of the Constitution. A three judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the directions while hearing issues related to the ongoing e-rickshaw pilot project in the eco-sensitive hill town of Matheran, Maharashtra. The Court observed that individuals are compelled to adopt this inhumane form of labour due to poverty and lack of alternatives. Emphasizing that such practices betray the constitutional ideals of social and economic justice, the bench remarked: 'Permitting such a practice, which is against the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, belittles the constitutional promises of social and economic justice.' Referring to the Court's own 1980 judgment in Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union vs State of Punjab, the bench noted that even 45 years after its observations on the incompatibility of cycle-pulled rickshaws with social justice, manual rickshaw pulling remains prevalent in Matheran. The Court stated, 'The question that we ask ourselves is whether this practice is alive to the Constitutional promise of social and economic equality and social and economic justice. The answer will, unfortunately, have to be in the negative... To continue such a human practice even after 78 years of Independence... would be betraying the promise given by the people of India to themselves.' Citing the precedent in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, where non-payment of minimum wages was held to be forced labour under Article 23, the Court emphasized that the State has a responsibility to rehabilitate those dependent on such degrading work and provide viable alternatives. The bench held that e-rickshaws represent such an alternative and directed the State of Maharashtra to implement an e-rickshaw scheme for genuine rickshaw pullers. The Supreme Court directed that there should be a phased abolition of hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran within six months. Implementation of an e-rickshaw scheme modeled on Kevadia (Gujarat), where the State will purchase e-rickshaws and allot them on hire to genuine handcart pullers. The Matheran Monitoring Committee, chaired by the local Collector, will identify genuine rickshaw pullers and determine the required number of e-rickshaws based on ground realities. Remaining e-rickshaws may be allocated to tribal women and other locals to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Laying of paver blocks from Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Statue is permitted, but not on internal roads or trading routes. Concrete blocks to be replaced with paver blocks where applicable. The State is cautioned that lack of funds cannot be used as an excuse for non-implementation. The Court stressed, 'We clarify that non-availability of funds cannot be an excuse for non-implementation of the aforesaid scheme. We earnestly hope that the State would tender necessary assistance in stopping such an inhumane practice.' Due to environmental concerns, Matheran prohibits the use of motor vehicles, with only emergency services such as fire trucks and ambulances allowed. The Court noted that eco-friendly e-rickshaws are a viable alternative. This ruling comes in the backdrop of ongoing proceedings in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, a continuing mandamus litigation concerning forest and environmental protection. In earlier hearings, the Court had permitted the introduction of 20 e-rickshaws in Matheran on a pilot basis, with clear instructions that these be allotted to existing handcart pullers. The plan had faced resistance from local horsemen's associations, who sought modifications to the scheme. In April this year, the Court had allowed these e-rickshaw owners, all former handcart pullers, to operate them for transporting tourists and residents in the town. Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Colin Gonsalves, and K. Parameswar (Amicus Curiae) appeared in the matter. UNI SNG RN
