"Justice Must Prevail": Families Of Mumbai Blasts Victims Demand CBI Probe
Hours after the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 men convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, families of the victims on Monday voiced strong concerns and demanded a fresh investigation, urging the Centre to hand over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The victims questioned the integrity of the initial investigation and called for accountability, expressing fear that justice may have been denied to the 189 people who lost their lives and over 800 who were injured in the devastating attack.
Speaking to IANS, Radhe Shyam Dubey, one of the injured in the blast, said, "There must be a proper re-investigation. The CBI should take over the case. Those responsible should not be allowed to go free. There seems to be serious collusion in this matter. I urge the government to act - this case should go to the Supreme Court. Around seven coordinated blasts happened that day. So many families were destroyed. We deserve answers. Justice delayed cannot mean justice denied."
He added, "There have been irregularities from the start. Kirit Somaiya led the charge back then, but now it's unclear what happened. The truth must come out, and justice must prevail."
Another family member of one of the victims said, "This is heartbreaking. If they were truly guilty, they should not walk free. We are confused. We don't fully understand what changed in the case. If the High Court found them innocent, we have to respect that, but it still leaves us with unanswered questions."
The Bombay High Court's verdict, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice S.G. Chandak, has overturned the 2015 decision of a special MCOCA court, which had convicted 12 men - sentencing five to death and seven to life imprisonment.
With Monday's order, the High Court directed the immediate release of the 12 accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Out of the 13 men originally arrested, one - Dr. Wahid Sheikh - was acquitted by the special court in 2015. The remaining 12 have now been exonerated as well.
The 2006 blasts - one of the worst terror attacks in Mumbai's history - occurred during evening rush hour on July 11. In a span of 11 minutes, seven bombs exploded in pressure cookers hidden inside bags across local trains travelling between Churchgate and Borivali, killing 189 people and injuring 824.
Forensic investigations had confirmed that the bombs were composed of RDX and ammonium nitrate, raising suspicions of cross-border terrorism.
The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had filed a chargesheet under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), alleging involvement of Pakistan-backed Islamic militants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20 minutes ago
- First Post
Mohammad Hidayatullah: The only Indian vice-president who also officiated as President and CJI
As India's second-highest office falls vacant with the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, history recalls the only man to have held the top three read more In an unprecedented development in India's constitutional history, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar tendered his resignation, citing health-related reasons. His exit from the second-highest constitutional office marks the first time a sitting vice president has voluntarily stepped down before completing the term. The resignation has created a temporary vacancy in the Rajya Sabha chair and prompted fresh discourse on constitutional succession. The Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed the resignation under Article 67A of the Indian Constitution, with immediate effect. Following the announcement in the Rajya Sabha by BJP MP Ghanshyam Tiwari, Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh assumed responsibility for chairing proceedings. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This development brings to mind a moment from 1969, when India faced a similar constitutional gap and a remarkable figure—Mohammad Hidayatullah—rose to fill it. A stalwart of the Indian judiciary and polity, Hidayatullah remains the only individual in Indian history to have held the offices of Chief Justice of India (CJI), Acting President, and Vice President. A star in the Indian judiciary Hidayatullah was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of India in February 1968, under Article 124 of the Constitution. He was the first Muslim to hold the post and earned respect for his sharp constitutional insights and erudition. Assuming the presidency in a time of crisis The summer of 1969 brought a constitutional conundrum. President Zakir Husain passed away in office and Vice-President VV Giri stepped in as acting president. However, when Giri resigned to contest the presidential election, both the top posts stood vacant. Under the provisions of Article 65 and the President (Discharge of Functions) Act, 1969, Chief Justice Hidayatullah was called upon to act as the President of India from July 20 to August 24, 1969. This was a moment of historical significance. It was the first and only time the chief justice had to act as the president due to vacancies in both the president and vice-president's offices. The Constitution, in its foresight, allowed for such an eventuality, highlighting the depth and resilience of India's legal framework. Vice-presidential tenure After retiring from the judiciary, Hidayatullah remained an influential figure in public life. In 1979, he was elected unopposed as the sixth Vice President of India, serving until 1984. His election was guided by Articles 63 to 68 of the Constitution, which regulate the post. During his tenure, he again briefly served as 'Acting President' in 1982 when President Zail Singh was abroad, reiterating his unique role in India's constitutional machinery. Landmark judgments and legal philosophy Hidayatullah's legacy as a jurist is rich with landmark cases and scholarly judgments. In the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, he opposed Parliament's unrestrained power to amend the Constitution, especially concerning Fundamental Rights. His judgment in Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra also set important boundaries around freedom of expression and obscenity laws. His opinions combined legal precision with literary elegance, reflecting his vast intellectual horizon. Beyond the courtroom Hidayatullah remains a towering figure whose constitutional journey is unmatched. His ability to serve in the judiciary's highest post, temporarily hold the presidency and later serve as vice president highlights the flexibility of India's constitutional provisions and the depth of leadership they can foster. At a moment when India's vice-president's office stands vacant, reflecting on Hidayatullah's legacy provides both historical perspective and institutional reassurance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Scroll.in
20 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: Assam constable's son held as suspected Bangladeshi, blasts acquittal challenged and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order on Monday acquitting all 12 persons accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The High Court said that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing the guilt of the 12 men. This came nearly 10 years after a special court had sentenced five of them to death and others to life imprisonment. It remarked that while punishing the perpetrators of a crime is an essential step, creating a 'false appearance of having solved a case' leads to a misleading sense of resolution. The Supreme Court will hear the matter on Thursday. The Supreme Court refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners' identities. The bench reiterated that the eateries must display their licences and registration certificates as required by law. The petitioners had argued that the governments' orders violated the court's 2024 interim order that prohibited vendors being forced to disclose their identities. The pleas had contended that the directives not only undermine the spirit of the court's stay, but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licencing requirements. Read on. An Assam Police constable has said that his son is among nine Muslims of Bengali origin who have been detained in Gurugram since Sunday on suspicion of being undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants. Sannat Ali, a constable in the Assam Industrial Security Force, told Scroll that his son, 23-year-old Ashraful Islam, is a resident of Barbala village in Barpeta district. He had gone to Haryana on July 11 to work at a construction site, said Ali. Ali said that his son had submitted his voter ID card, school certificates, Aadhaar card and PAN card, which were not accepted by the police. 'They call them illegal Bangladeshis,' Ali alleged. He added: 'We have sent more documents like my service identity card and voter cards. Senior police officials have contacted me this morning. They are working to release him.' An assistant commissioner of police-rank in Gurugram told Scroll that the action was taken as per the Union home ministry's guidelines to verify the credentials of persons suspected to be undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. Read on. A day after Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned as the vice president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wished him good health and said that the Rajya Sabha chairperson had 'got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities'. Dhankhar had cited medical reasons for stepping down with immediate effect on Monday, which was the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Several Opposition leaders raised questions about the timing of Dhankhar's resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that there were 'far deeper reasons' behind Dhankhar's decision.
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismisses Congress appeal against Rs 199 crore tax assessment
Denying relief to the Indian National Congress, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on Monday dismissed an appeal by the party against a tax demand of ₹199.15 crore for the year 2018-19. Late return filing and violations of cash donation limits were among the main grounds due to which the ITAT rejected the party's claim for tax exemption. 'The assessee's return filed on 02.02.2019 is not within the 'due' date to make it eligible for the impugned exemption,' ruled the coram on July 21. The INC had filed its income tax return on February 2, 2019 – over a month after the extended due date of December 31, 2018, prescribed under the IT Act. It had declared income after claiming an exemption of Rs. 199.15 crores. Another issue that the ITAT looked at was a violation of cash donation limits. According to scrutiny proceedings, the party had received ₹14.49 lakh in cash donations exceeding ₹2,000 from various individuals. Donations above ₹ 2,000 can only be received through banking channels like account payee cheques or electronic transfers as per the Finance Act, 2017. 'As per section 13A(d) of the Act, donation in excess of ₹2,000/- is mandatorily be received through a/c payee cheque/draft or through electronic mode and therefore donation in excess of ₹2,000/- received in cash violates provisions of clause (d) of first proviso to section 13A of the Act,' the ITAT order stated. The Congress tried to find respite in Section 139(4) of the IT Act which states that if an individual misses the ITR filing deadline, they can still file a belated return, subject to penalties. The ITAT, however, denied it relief. '…it is manifestly clear that the legislature has incorporated the statutory expression therein as 'within the time allowed under that section' i.e. section 139(1) as well as u/s 139(4)…we thus reject the assessee's instant first and foremost substantive grievance in very terms and decide the above first question framed between the parties; in the department's favour,' the tribunal ruled.
