Mumbai train bombings: India court pauses acquittal of 12 men convicted in the case
While pausing the high court order on Thursday, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court said the men were not required to go back to prison.The judges said that some of the observations made by the high court in its order could impact pending cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Live Law website reported.The 12 men had been convicted in 2015 by a MCOCA court - a special court set up to try cases that fall under the particular law.On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through busy commuter trains during the evening rush hour in one of India's deadliest attacks.The bombs, packed into seven pressure cookers and put in bags, detonated within six minutes of each other.The blasts took place in the areas of Matunga, Khar, Mahim, Jogeshwari, Borivali and Mira Road, with most on moving trains and two at stations.Indian security agencies blamed the attack on Islamist militants backed by Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad denied.The accused, who were arrested shortly after the blasts, have been in jail since then. One of them, Kamal Ansari, who had been sentenced to death, died of Covid in 2021.The MCOCA court convicted the men of murder, conspiracy and waging war against the country. The prosecution appealed to confirm the death sentences, while the defence sought acquittal.In July 2024, the Bombay High Court formed the two-judge bench to expedite the hearings.Reports say that over the next six months, the court conducted more than 75 sittings and examined 92 prosecution witnesses and over 50 defence witnesses.In the 667-page order on Monday, the court noted that the defence had questioned the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, as well as the confessional statements made by the accused.It also acknowledged the defence's contention that the recovered evidence was not maintained in a "sealed condition throughout".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The problems with a state of Palestine
France intends to recognise a state of Palestine at the United Nations, which I'm sure will be followed by UK recognition of the same. We can be sure of this because the UK does not have an independent foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East. Inside or outside of the European Union, London's stance on Israel and the Palestinians has become indistinguishable from the position of the European Commission. The European Commission simps for the Palestinians and Britain simps for the European Commission. I take the somewhat contentious view that Britain should simp for itself, which is why in my occasional (read: incessant) Coffee House posts recommending, beseeching, UK recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel I have made a case based on the British national interest. Israel's medical innovations, advanced technology, and unparalleled intelligence on Islamist extremism makes it an invaluable ally for the UK. Israel is a country that acts out of self-interest and respects other countries that do the same. National self-interest is a concept not only alien to Britain's governing class but something they consider dirty and shameful. The flaws inherent in France's decision will apply also to Britain's eventual announcement. If there is a state of Palestine, where is it? Applying the 1949 armistice lines, Palestine would consist of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza and eastern Jerusalem, but the Palestinians exercise de facto sovereignty over only parts of these territories. Jerusalem is controlled entirely by Israel, Gaza's land and sea boundaries by Israel and Egypt, and Judea and Samaria by a combination of the Israeli military and, in a handful of cities, the Palestinian Authority. Palestine is a state without effective authority over its claimed territory and unable to enforce its borders. If there is a state of Palestine, what kind of state is it? Mahmoud Abbas is in the 20th year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority, fresh elections having been postponed indefinitely on the quite reasonable grounds that he would have lost. The state of Palestine, if it exists, is not a democracy. That covers where and what Palestine is, but who exercises sovereignty in this supposedly sovereign state? Under the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but the Palestinians' claimed territory has been effectively split for two decades now. After Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections, breaking Fatah's long-running stranglehold on Palestinian politics, the two parties proved incapable of cooperating. A brief civil war the following year saw Gaza severed from Palestinian Authority control and run autonomously by Hamas, which has served as its de facto government ever since. If there is a state of Palestine, which is its legitimate government? Hamas won the last election, but is not to the tastes of western leaders. The Fatah-leaning Palestinian Authority is favoured in European capitals, but has refused to allow elections. These are not mere theoretical questions. If a state of Palestine exists and includes Gaza, it is a state in which citizens of a neighbouring state are being held against their will. States have an obligation to prevent the taking or holding of foreign hostages on their territory. This convention will be weakened if the international community recognises Palestine without pressing that state to uphold its duties, putting nationals of all countries at greater risk of being taken captive. Similarly, Gaza has been used by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups to launch rockets into Israel while Palestinians have regularly travelled from Judea and Samaria, as well as eastern Jerusalem, to carry out terror attacks against Israelis. States have a duty to prevent and suppress terrorism, including that carried out from their territory against another state. Since the last serious challenge to its authority saw the Palestinian Authority lose part of its claimed territory to a terrorist group, it is not at all clear that Palestine could fulfil this obligation. Recognition of Palestine also raises the question of human rights and discrimination. Under Palestinian law it is a capital crime to sell property to an Israeli. Will Palestine recognisers be pushing for this legislation to be repealed? Then there is the matter of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, third holiest in Islam and a significant place for Christians too. The complex is run by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf and all but one of its functioning gates is for the use of Muslims only, with non-Muslims forced to enter and exit via a single gate for the kafir. Israel cooperates with this arrangement in order to keep the peace in a territory where the international community says it is not the lawful sovereign anyway. If this part of Jerusalem is now to be considered the sovereign territory of a state, that state will have to decide whether to permit segregation on the basis of faith to continue under its laws. It would be unfortunate if it does, but at least we'd get to savour the spectacle of NGOs, human rights activists and international law professors flushing everything they've previously said about 'apartheid states' down the memory hole. What of the fate of the Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem? Even if we accept that settlements are illegal – which I don't – their residents are civilians who have lived in these areas for a considerable time. Some were born there to parents who were also born there. There are vanishingly few examples in modern times of civilian settler populations being transferred peacefully. The Palestinian Authority has previously said it would not permit a single Israeli to remain in a Palestinian state. By what means does it intend to achieve this population transfer? How will it enforce the removal of Israeli civilians who attempt to remain in their homes? And, just so we can keep track of these things, would the transfer of 750,000 Jews out of the State of Palestine be the good kind of ethnic cleansing or the bad kind? These are just a few of the many practical problems with recognising a Palestinian state, although none are as prohibitive as the unhappy truth that every time the Palestinians have been offered a state they have rejected it, more often than not followed by violence. Their representatives have in the past made formal statements recognising Israel, but in practice Palestinian leadership and civic society has dug itself deeper into a trench of anti-Semitism and extremism. Until earlier this year they routinely paid stipends to the families of terrorists killed or imprisoned in the course of attacking and murdering Israelis. There continue to be Palestinian schools and summer camps where children dress up as terrorists and play-act mock attacks on Israel. It remains socially acceptable to give sweets to children to celebrate the slaying of Israelis. No amount of recognitions or declarations, not by the French or the British or anyone else, can will into existence a Palestinian state or the leadership, civil society, or norms required to build and sustain one. For decades European and at times even American policy has proceeded from the certainty that the absence of a Palestinian state was the result of Israeli opposition to the idea, and so they have concentrated pressure on Jerusalem in the mistaken belief that a Palestinian state is something Israel can give the Palestinians. Israel can give territory, the world can give recognition, but the only people who can give the Palestinians a state are themselves.
Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Israel to allow foreign aid to parachute into Gaza but continues bombardment despite growing global pleas for ceasefire
Aid drops will be managed by Jordan and the United Arab Emirates GAZA HELLHOLE Israel to allow foreign aid to parachute into Gaza but continues bombardment despite growing global pleas for ceasefire ISRAEL will allow foreign aid to parachute into Gaza despite continuing its relentless onslaught. Horror scenes of mass starvation have sparked an international outcry after Israel restricted supplies to the territory. Advertisement 7 A mother cradles her 18-month child in Gaza where fears of famine are growing Credit: Getty 7 Smoke billows over destroyed buildings after an Israeli airstrike Credit: AFP 7 Palestinians gather to receive food from a charity kitchen Credit: Reuters 7 A boy cries as he tries to receive food in the under siege territory Credit: Getty Aid groups warned this week Palestinians are on the brink of famine with one in five children suffering from malnutrition, with UN warning civilians are becoming "walking corpses". But Israel has denied responsibility, blaming Hamas for the suffering of Gaza's population. Aid drops into the territory will be managed by Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, an Israeli official said. Despite the concession, Israel is keeping up its heavy bombardment in the face of global ceasefire please and huge protests in Tel Aviv. Advertisement Explosions from fresh overnight strikes rocked the besieged coastal strip, with Israeli Defence Forces troops continuing to advance on Hamas lairs. The terrorists are still hiding out within civilian communities after the cornered Islamist group repeatedly rejected ceasefire terms. French president Emmanuel Macron yesterday ramped up pressure on Israel to halt fighting by announcing his nation would become the first in The West to recognise a Palestine state. Macron held emergency talks over the crisis today with UK PM Sir Keir Starmer who called conditions in the 25-mile enclave 'unspeakable and indefensible'. Advertisement Starmer has already declared statehood is Palestinians' 'inalienable right' but has yet to officially declare recognition. Humanitarian workers have reported seeing children 'emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying' without urgent treatment, Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UNRWA relief agency said. Parish priest Gabriel Romanelli is being treated after Israel hit Holy Family Catholic Church in Gaza Starmer said: 'We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe. 'The suffering and starvation unfolding in Gaza is unspeakable and indefensible. While the situation has been grave for some time, it has reached new depths and continues to worsen.' Advertisement Gaza's health ministry - which is controlled by Hamas - said 82 of 113 hunger-related deaths recorded there so far are Palestinian children. But scores of desperate, innocent civilians have been killed queuing for food aid amid claims of IDF atrocities. US and Israeli negotiators in Qatar walked out of ceasefire talks on Thursday after Hamas submitted a list of 'impossible' demands. They reportedly included the release of more prisoners in exchange for hostages, including captured commandos involved in the October 7 attacks. Advertisement Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff branded Hamas 'selfish' and suggested that the group 'does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith'. He added that the terror group's 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza' was the reason US negotiators had been recalled. 7 Smoke and flames rise from a residential building hit by an Israeli strike Credit: Reuters 7 Injured Palestinians are transported to hospitals Credit: Getty Advertisement 7 Thousands gather in Tel Aviv to protest the ongoing attacks on Gaza Credit: Getty Thousands gathered in Tel Aviv's Habima Square on Thursday for a protest demanding Israel's strongman PM Benjamin Netanyahu end the Gaza war and return the hostages. Netanyahu has been accused of prolonging the bloodbath to save his political skin - and deflect blame for the security lapses which enabled Hamas to carry out the October 7 horror. The rally, which began with a moment of silence for fallen soldiers, was joined by parents of hostages, parents of soldiers, and reservists demanding and end to the war. Advertisement Retired military commander Major General Noam Tibon said at the rally: 'In the beginning, this was a just war after 22 months, this war no longer has a security purpose. 'The war has turned into a political war, and while the best of us are falling in Gaza.'
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Let trans women into women's shelters, say SNP ministers
But the suggestion drew strong criticism from campaigners, who said the Scottish Government was misrepresenting the law. 'Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women',' Trina Budge of For Women Scotland told The Herald. READ MORE Three months ago, the UK's highest court ruled that 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex rather than gender identity. The court case was brought by FWS after they challenged the Scottish Government's guidance on the definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including how single-sex services can be lawfully provided, when trans people can be excluded, and when organisations might request a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. The draft said any service offered to 'women and trans women' is not a single-sex service under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful discrimination against those of the opposite sex. The EHRC later opened a consultation on the draft to help formulate an updated Code of Practice. The commission said it received more than 50,000 responses. Final guidance had been expected before Parliament broke for summer earlier this week, but the EHRC said last week it would be published later in the year. For Women Scotland won the Supreme Court in April (Image: PA) The Scottish Government quietly published its response to the consultation on Friday afternoon. Ministers raised concerns that the commission's draft code placed too much emphasis on when trans people can be excluded from services, and not enough on how services can remain inclusive within the law. 'We consider that it would be helpful to provide illustrative examples within the Code of Practice to provide guidance on how a service provider may lawfully implement an inclusive approach,' the Government said. 'This would be particularly helpful in situations where a service provider has identified a need that exists for both biological women and trans women, for example in relation to those who have experienced domestic abuse, homelessness or trafficking. 'Without this clarity, providers may simply stop offering any services to trans people due to concerns about legal risk.' They also warned that, following the judgment, some trans people had chosen to 'remove themselves from public life' out of fear of being turned away from services. In its submission, the Scottish Government also said it was also concerned about what it described as 'social policing' of someone's sex. 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The response also called for advice on how to apply the updated definition of legal sex to workplace facilities, and for consideration of the impact of the code on intersex people. Ms Budge said: 'The Scottish Government still woefully misunderstands the Supreme Court judgment on how the Equality Act works. "Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women'. 'We note that in pushing for this option, the Government has dropped its previous legal argument that a man needs a GRC to access a women's service and reverted to, once again, looking for ways to include men in women's services on a self-ID basis. 'Women who have suffered domestic abuse or trafficking do not wish to be put in sleeping accommodation with males for very good reasons of privacy and safety, and it is beyond our understanding why the Government keeps trying to insist otherwise." Lucy Hunter Blackburn from the MBM policy collective said: 'The response suggests that the Scottish Government has learnt little from the past few years. "It remains fundamentally unsympathetic to the rights and needs of women as a sex, and strongly wedded to defining 'women' as a group that must include some men. 'As a result, it appears to misunderstand both the judgment and the role of the EHRC. It still seems to believe, wrongly, that managing single-sex services and spaces must involve 'balancing' the rights of women against those of a sub-set of men. 'It is resisting clarity in favour of complication, and in doing so providing poor leadership to all Scottish public bodies who now just need to make the law work on the ground.'
