Justice delayed yet again
The case, which was investigated by two different agencies, triggered accusations of 'saffron terror'. All the accused were charged by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in 2008 of being 'Hindutva extremists'. The trial was controversial as Rohini Salian, the former special public prosecutor, had alleged in 2015 that the government had put pressure on her, through the NIA, to 'go soft' on the accused.
The case was initially probed by ATS chief Hemant Karkare, who was gunned down by terrorists during the November 26, 2008, terror attack on Mumbai. Eventually, it was handed over to the NIA.
While acquitting the seven accused, the court pointed out several lapses in the investigation and criticised the NIA for presenting 'inconclusive', 'unreliable', and 'legally inadmissible' evidence. It said that there were procedural lapses in the invocation of stringent laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It added that the investigators had failed to link the motorcycle, allegedly used in the crime, to Ms. Thakur; that there were problems with witness statements; and that there was no proof that Lt Col Prasad Purohit (retired) or the right-wing outfit, Abhinav Bharat, was linked to the blast.
In the order, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed, 'The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.' While he said that terrorism has no religion, the Special Judge also added that a court cannot convict someone based on mere perception.
Civil society members were critical of the verdict given the allegations that it was politically driven; and also since it came on the back of another verdict acquitting all the accused in another blast case.
On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 serial bomb blasts case. Seven explosions had ripped through Mumbai's local trains on the evening of July 11, 2006, killing 189 people and seriously injuring 824. The coordinated blasts had scarred the estimated 70 lakh people of Mumbai who use the local trains, often dubbed the city's lifeline, every day. Many victims feared taking the local train again.
This case too was riddled with controversies. While the Maharashtra ATS, which had conducted the probe from the beginning, claimed that the attacks were the handiwork of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Students' Islamic Movement of India, several other investigating agencies, including the NIA, claimed that the Indian Mujahideen had carried out the terror attacks.
While acquitting the 12 accused, the High Court laid bare the inconsistencies, loopholes, and lapses in the probe by the Maharashtra ATS. It asked how key witness statements were recorded after an unexplained delay of 100 days. It questioned the trustworthiness and credibility of witnesses, highlighted deep flaws in both the investigation as well as prosecution, and demanded to know why the circumstantial evidence, such as call detail records, which the investigators had relied on so much, was inconclusive. It pointed out that the witness statements were delayed and inconsistent; that there were procedural lapses and coercion allegations about the confessions retrieved; that there was no proof of actual explosives used; and that the chain of custody of the recoveries was broken. The High Court also rapped the trial court for the conviction order.
The judgments on two terror cases in India have left the victims, who have had to wait for nearly two decades for verdicts, without a sense of justice. The investigations raise serious questions about India's criminal justice system and specifically about the accountability of investigating agencies. Who are the agencies answerable to, for their contradictory claims and shoddy procedures, which have allowed extremist organisations to get away with such terrible crimes in Maharashtra? And when — if at all they do — will the victims of these blasts get a sense of closure?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
SP Leader Sparks Outrage By Linking Uttarakhand Floods To Bulldozer Action On Religious Sites
Samajwadi Party leader ST Hasan has ignited a major political controversy by drawing connections between the devastating flash floods in Uttarakhand and the government's bulldozer operations targeting religious structures in the state. His inflammatory comments have triggered widespread condemnation across party lines, with critics accusing him of exploiting natural disasters for political gain and spreading communal discord. The contentious remarks emerged in response to the catastrophic cloudburst incident in Uttarakashi that resulted in five fatalities. Hasan's attempt to correlate the natural calamity with demolition activities against places of worship has been met with fierce backlash from various political quarters, including both ruling and opposition parties who have denounced the statement as inappropriate and divisive. Congress Member of Parliament Imran Masood delivered a particularly harsh rebuke, describing such statements as the product of mental instability. He emphasized that individuals making such inflammatory remarks should fear divine retribution and avoid spreading hatred through their words. His criticism reflects the broader political consensus against using natural disasters as fodder for communal polarization. Despite facing intense criticism from multiple directions, Hasan has remained steadfast in defending his controversial position. He expanded his argument beyond the immediate incident, claiming that various natural calamities are occurring due to severe ecosystem damage and indiscriminate deforestation practices. The SP leader argued that regardless of religious affiliation—whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian—all believers share faith in a divine creator, and consequently, places of worship including mosques, dargahs, and temples should remain protected from bulldozer operations. While acknowledging that authorities might evacuate such structures if necessary, he insisted they should be allowed to remain standing. The backlash against Hasan's statements has been particularly severe from the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership. Uttar Pradesh minister Danish Azad Ansari condemned the remarks as completely inappropriate, arguing that mocking such tragic events does not suit leaders of the Samajwadi Party. He criticized what he perceived as an attempt to score political points even during tragic circumstances, calling upon SP leadership to demonstrate greater sensitivity toward human suffering. BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari launched an even more scathing attack, accusing Hasan of deliberately communalizing what should be treated as a natural tragedy. He alleged that the former SP parliamentarian was insulting Hindu communities while simultaneously downplaying the genuine suffering of Uttarkashi's Dharali village residents who bore the brunt of the cloudburst disaster. Bhandari's criticism highlighted what he characterized as the Samajwadi Party's tendency to view even death and disaster through the lens of Hindu-Muslim divisions. The controversy has exposed deeper fault lines in Indian political discourse, particularly regarding the intersection of environmental issues, religious sensitivities, and political opportunism. While Hasan's concerns about deforestation and ecosystem damage reflect legitimate environmental issues that contribute to natural disasters, his decision to link these concerns with religious demolitions has been widely perceived as crossing acceptable boundaries of political commentary. Environmental experts and disaster management specialists have long warned that uncontrolled development, deforestation, and climate change are increasing the frequency and severity of natural disasters in mountainous regions like Uttarakhand. However, the scientific consensus focuses on these measurable factors rather than drawing connections to religious or political activities unrelated to environmental degradation. The timing of Hasan's remarks has also contributed to the intensity of the backlash, coming as rescue operations were still underway and families were grieving their losses. Political analysts note that exploiting human tragedy for partisan purposes typically generates negative public reaction across ideological lines, as demonstrated by the cross-party condemnation of his statements. The incident reflects broader challenges facing Indian politics, where natural disasters and national tragedies sometimes become vehicles for advancing partisan agendas rather than opportunities for unified response and genuine problem-solving. The controversy surrounding Hasan's remarks illustrates how quickly legitimate policy discussions about environmental protection and religious rights can be overshadowed by inflammatory rhetoric that prioritizes political scoring over constructive dialogue. The widespread rejection of Hasan's comments by leaders across the political spectrum suggests that there remain certain boundaries in Indian political discourse that are considered inviolable, particularly when it comes to exploiting human suffering for electoral or ideological advantage. However, the incident also highlights ongoing tensions between secular governance and religious sensitivities that continue to influence political debates in contemporary India.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Assam eviction drives aimed at 'creating narrative' before assembly polls: Experts
On these recent evictions, eminent advocate Santanu Borthakur said: "If it is a forest land, then whosoever stays there for whatever longer period, it does not give them legal rights to settle there permanently. " However, targeting only one community, as seen in the recent cases in Golaghat is "absolutely discriminatory", he added. "The CM's recent comment that no eviction will take place against people from other communities is anti-Constitution and not permitted by law," Borthakur said. In Rengma, 1,500 Muslim families were evicted. The remaining families are from Bodo, Nepali, Manipuri and other communities, who have certificates from the Forest Rights Committee (FRC). According to Kaustubh Deka, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Dibrugarh University, the eviction drive is a significant and sensitive moment for the state, and the whole episode highlights the critical bearing of the state's complex socio-political history. "The government must maintain a fair balance between three aspects. One, the allegation that genuine Indian citizens are being selectively targeted, needs to be addressed in all earnestness. Two, the rights given to people under progressive environmental legislations such as 'Forest Rights Act' need to be respected," he added. Also, care should be taken that the ongoing process doesn't trigger complications in Assam's already volatile border dispute scenario with many of its neighbouring states, Deka said. Talking about alleged encroachments in inter-state border areas in Rengma, advocate Borthakur said that normally in border areas, the government settles people in the buffer zones so that no encroachment takes place from the opposite side. "We can see such habitation in all border areas. Usually minorities, Gorkha and Bihari people, are settled in such locations," he added. Barua too supported his claim and said that in all the border areas with neighbouring states, usually people or communities originally from outside are settled. "The indigenous people usually do not live there. People from communities like Adivasis, Gorkhas and minorities live in such areas," he added. The reserve forests witnessing recent evictions are along Assam-Nagaland border, where people from the neighbouring state had allegedly attempted to occupy land. The evicted people claimed that their previous generation was settled in the forest by the Golap Borbora government in 1978-79 and the AGP government, which came to power in 1985. Borthakur said, "Without considering the historical background, carrying out an eviction is not appropriate. Legally, the government has the power, but the manner in which that power was exercised is not acceptable. It is inhuman and arbitrary." He also stressed that evicting people without rehabilitation is wrong. Echoing similar sentiments, Deka said, "This is against all democratic norms and practices. Utterly inhumane." Even the Supreme Court judgement says that even pavement dwellers can not be evicted without rehabilitation.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Pleas on land acquisition for RRR to be heard on August 11 in Telangana
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court will hear arguments on August 11 in a batch of petitions filed by more than 45 landowners and agriculturists challenging the state government's move to acquire lands for the formation of a Greenfield Radial Road from the Outer Ring Road interchange at Raviryal to the Regional Ring Road at Amangal in Rangareddy district. The petitions, filed nearly two months ago, had earlier come up for hearing but were adjourned after the Advocate General sought time to submit a detailed counter. The landowners alleged that the acquisition process violates mandatory provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. They contended that authorities, under the pretext of complying with Sections 16 to 18 of the Act, issued notices for Grama Sabhas and public hearings in May and June without first conducting the required census and household survey of affected families. In its counter, the government maintained that Grama Sabhas were duly conducted and that objections raised by the petitioners were examined and addressed in accordance with the provisions of the law.
