Maharashtra moves Supreme Court challenging acquittal of 2006 Mumbai blasts accused
The Supreme Court has listed the petition for hearing on Thursday.
On Monday, the High Court acquitted the 12 men accused in the case, holding that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing their guilt. This came nearly 10 years after a special court had sentenced five of them to death and others to life imprisonment.
The case pertains to the serial blasts that took place on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 189 persons and injuring 824.
Following a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, a special court had in October 2015 convicted the 12 persons.
The five persons who had been sentenced to death by the trial court are Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan. All had been held guilty of planting the bombs.
Kamal Ansari died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while in the Nagpur Central Jail.
The seven others who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court are Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Mohammed Majid Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh.
On Monday, a special High Court bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandar overturned the convictions stating that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ordered the accused men to be released from jail if they were not required in any other case.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had described the verdict as 'shocking' and said that the state government would challenge it in the Supreme Court, the Hindustan Times reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows Kerala to withdraw plea against Governor, Centre resists
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 25, 2025) allowed the State of Kerala to withdraw two petitions filed against its State Governor's delay in clearing crucial Bills despite stiff resistance from the Centre. Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the State was withdrawing on the strength of an April 8 judgment in an identical case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor. 'This is not just a simple withdrawal,' Mr. Venkataramani addressed the court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to tag the Kerala petitions against its Governor with a Presidential Reference pending before a Constitution Bench. The April 8 judgment has prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for both the President and State Governors to act on State Bills sent to them for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, of the Constitution. In May, the President had issued a reference under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 143 of the Constitution), questioning the court's inherent powers under Article 142 to 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills. 'How can a withdrawal of a petition be tagged with a Presidential Reference before a Constitution Bench?' Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal reacted. The senior lawyer said the State was entitled to withdraw its case. 'But there is a string attached to the April 8 judgment,' Mr. Venkataramani insisted. 'No strings attached... The string is cut,' Mr. Venugopal said. In an earlier hearing on July 14, Mr. Venugopal had submitted that the April judgment had made the State's petitions infructuous. The law officers had countered the apex court ought to wait for the Constitution Bench's respomses to questioms raised in the Presidential Reference. However, Justice Narasimha had himself remarked that it would be 'very, very difficult' for the apex court to stop Kerala from withdrawing its petitions.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Lost his mental balance' jibe: DK Shivakumar attacks Pramod Sawant over Mahadayi project; Goa CM hits back, says it reflects 'Congress culture'
NEW DELHI: Goa chief minister Pramod Sawant has hit back at Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar, saying his remarks reflect 'Congress culture', after Shivakumar accused him of having 'lost his mental balance' over the long-running Mahadayi river dispute. Shivakumar's comments came after Sawant told the Goa assembly earlier this week that his government would move the Supreme Court against Karnataka for continuing work on the Kalasa-Banduri project, despite the matter being under judicial consideration. On Friday, speaking to reporters in Panaji, Sawant said, 'We are pursuing our demand to save Mhadei from being diverted. Shivakumar's statements reflect the Congress culture. When someone is frustrated, they speak like this.' You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Sawant also accused Karnataka Congress leaders of competing 'to see how low they can stoop'. The Kalasa-Banduri project seeks to divert water from the Mahadayi river, known as Mhadei in Goa and Mandovi in its downstream flow, to supply drinking water to parts of northern Karnataka, including Dharwad and Belagavi. Goa has consistently opposed the diversion, citing environmental concerns and its impact on the state's biodiversity. The river is a key source of water and one of the two major rivers in the state. In 2018, the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal allocated 13.42 tmcft of water to Karnataka, 1.33 tmcft to Maharashtra, and 24 tmcft to Goa. The award was notified by the Centre in 2020. The dispute continues to be a politically sensitive issue in both states.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Supreme Court Allows Kerala Govt To Withdraw Pleas Challenging Governor's Inaction On Bills
Last Updated: On July 26 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Kerala's plea alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against the Governor for delaying the approval of bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar issued the order after senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, requested the withdrawal, noting the issue had become infructuous following a recent judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the withdrawal and urged the court to wait for the Supreme Court's decision on the President's reference under Article 143 of the Constitution concerning the granting of assent to bills. On April 22, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the recent Tamil Nadu judgment, which set timelines for granting assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. The Supreme Court bench, on April 8, acting on Tamil Nadu's plea, ruled that the reservation of 10 bills for the President's consideration was illegal and erroneous in law. For the first time, the bench set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved by the Governor. On July 26 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Kerala's plea alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu, which were yet to be cleared. Noting the pleas, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of the Kerala Governor. Kerala argued that the Governor reserved seven bills for the President's consideration, which he was required to handle himself. None of the seven bills pertained to Centre-state relations. The bills had been pending for two years, effectively subverting the state legislature's functioning, the state claimed. The state government highlighted that the bills included public interest measures that remained ineffective due to the Governor's inaction. The home ministry informed Kerala that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills: University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution does not specify how long the President can take to grant assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred for presidential consideration. Article 361 states the President or Governor is not answerable to any court for their duties and actions performed in office. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
