Jamiat looks back at 19 years of the 11/7 Mumbai train blasts' legal battle
"We cannot describe the happiness after the acquittal of these 12 innocent men. We share the pain of the families of the blasts' victims, but justice can be done only when the real culprits are punished," said Jamiat's Maharashtra unit president Maulana Halimullah Qasmi.
Now that the state govt has challenged the Bombay high court verdict in Supreme Court, Qasmi said, Jamiat will fight the case there too. "We need to receive formal requests from the families of the men who spent 19 years in jail."
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
Founded in 1919 to oppose British rule with the blessings of scholar Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan, the Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind emerged as a nationalist organisation of Muslim religious leaders, mostly subscribing to the Deoband school of thought. It opposed Jinnah's theory of two nations and, post-Independence, championed social harmony and welfare. The Jamiat is one of the petitioners in SC opposing the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
Taking up the cause of "innocents framed in terror cases" has grown into a broad legal activity post-2000, especially in Malegaon, Mumbai, Aurangabad and Akshardham, where a series of terror attacks took place and investigators made numerous arrests and detentions.
With two crore members, including 22 lakh in Maharashtra, Jamiat is one of the largest Muslim organisations in the country — membership costs only Rs 2.
So far, Jamiat has secured 306 acquittals and 227 bail orders. Currently it is involved with around 100 cases involving nearly 500 accused, including 85 on death row and 125 serving life imprisonment.
Recalling the organic manner in which its activities grew, advocate Shahid Nadeem, who is on the Jamiat's legal panel, said the impetus came when advocate Shahid Azmi, who was killed in 2010, met the organisation secretary (legal), Gulzar Azmi, when the latter's two sons were in jail in a MCOCA case.
The duo met Samajwadi Party leader Abu Asim Azmi to seek help for the 11/7 suspects. Azmi agreed to partially foot the legal bill and Jamiat president Maulana Arshad Madni ensured the rest of the expenses were met through community donations.
The Jamiat split into two factions in 2008, with Madni's nephew Maulana Mahmood Madni leading the other faction, but the legal outreach continued. A battery of lawyers, led by Yug Mohit Chaudhary, finally managed to secure the acquittals in HC.
Recalling the organic manner in which its activities grew, advocate Shahid Nadeem who is on the Jamiat's legal panel, said the impetus came when advocate Shahid Azmi (who was killed in 2010) met the organisation secretary (legal), Gulzar Azmi. Shahid approached the secretary at a time when the latter's own two sons were in jail in a MCOCA case. Shahid and Gulzar Azmi together met Samajwadi Party leader Abu Asim Azmi to seek help for the 7/11 suspects.
Azmi agreed to partially foot the legal bill while the Jamiat's all-India president Maulana Arshad Madni ensured the rest of the expenses were met through community donations.
The Jamiat split into two factions in 2008, with Madni's nephew Maulana Mahmood Madni leading the other faction, but the legal outreach continued. A battery of lawyers, led by Yug Mohit Chaudhary, finally managed to secure the acquittals in the Bombay high court, where the case was admitted in 2015. As they prepare for the next phase of the legal battle, the Jamiat realises there is a long way to go.
"Though happy at the acquittals, we are also shocked at the urgency of the state govt in challenging the HC verdict in Supreme Court," said Nadeem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Was Gandhi's fight for Bhagat Singh sincere or tokenism before the British?
Was Gandhi's fight for Bhagat Singh sincere or tokenism before the British? Chander MohanJyotsna Mohan Aug 16, 2025, 12:36 IST IST An excerpt from 'Pratap: A Defiant Newspaper' revisits Gandhi's uneasy role in the trial and hanging of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, a moment that exposed deep ideological rifts and tested the Mahatma's moral authority In India's Independence movement, two names that existed like parallel tracks were Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh who although immersed in the same cause had a vastly different approach to freedom. Gandhi believed in non-violence. Bhagat Singh felt that spilling blood for the cause was perhaps inevitable. This is probably why Gandhi's efforts to save the lives of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev from the death sentence are not very convincing although some historians say it was not Gandhi's battle to fight. Nevertheless, after the freedom fighters were sent to the gallows, he faced a backlash across the country with black flags shown perhaps for the only time to the Mahatma at the Congress session in Karachi.
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
Like a gambler, govts squandered India's legacy through mindless socialism: Nani Palkhivala
The greatest achievement of Indian democracy is that it has survived unfractured for forty-three years. Eight hundred and forty million people — more than the combined population of Africa and South America — live together as one political entity under conditions of freedom. Never before in history, and nowhere else in the world today, has one-sixth of the human race existed as a single free nation. At the stroke of midnight on 14th August 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru made his famous speech wherein he referred to India keeping her tryst with destiny and awaking to life and freedom. To review the last three and forty years in an hour is like trying to see the Himalayas at night in one flash of lightning. One thing I promise you — I shall 'nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.' I would be dishonouring the memory of Pandit Nehru and of his mentor, Mahatma Gandhi, if I tried to be economical with the truth. First, we had 5000 years of civilization behind us — a civilization which had reached 'the summit of human thought'. The trader's instinct is innate in Indian genes. An Indian can buy from a jew and sell to a Scot, and yet make a profit! Secondly, whereas before 1858 India was never a united political entity, that year the accident of British rule welded us into one country, one nation; and when independence came, we had been in unified nationality for almost a century under one head of state. Thirdly, our Founding Fathers, after two long years of laborious and painful toil, gave us a Constitution which a former Chief Justice of India rightly described as 'sublime.' It was the longest Constitution in the world till, a few years ago, Yugoslavia had the impertinence to adopt a longer Constitution. The right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is again guaranteed right. The concept of 'socialism' did not figure anywhere in the Constitution as originally enacted. On the contrary, the Constitution provided for the Directive Principle of State Policy that the State shall endeavour to secure that 'the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good' and that 'the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment'. These words rule out State ownership – the Monolithic State – which is the hallmark of communism, euphemistically called socialism. India is the only country in the world where, in the States which are governed by the Communist party, human rights are fully respected — and that is only because the Bill of Rights is firmly entrenched in our national Constitution. We can proudly say that our Constitution gave us a flying start and equipped us adequately to meet the challenges of the future. Unfortunately, over the years we dissipated every advantage we started with, like a compulsive gambler bent upon squandering an invaluable legacy. I am afraid, India today is only a caricature of the noble democracy which Nehru strove to bring to life and freedom in 1947. Also read: Easier to throw off foreign tyranny than tyranny of elected representative: Nani Palkhivala Shells of socialism and state controls Successive governments imposed mindless socialism on the nation, which held in thrall the people's endeavour and enterprise. They respected the shells of socialism — state control and state ownership — while the kernel, the spirit of social justice, was left no chance of coming to life. We shut our eyes to the fact that socialism is to social justice what ritual is to religion and dogma is to truth. The peacock is our national bird, but we could have more appropriately chosen the ostrich! The Economist rightly remarked in January 1987 that socialism as practised in India has been a fraud. Our brand of socialism did not result in transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor but only from the honest rich to the dishonest rich. We built up State-Owned Enterprises — called the public sector in India. The sleeping sickness of socialism is now universally acknowledged, — but not officially in India. No less than 231 public sector enterprises are run by the Union Government, and 636 by the State Governments. These have been the black holes of our economy. There is a tidal wave of privatization sweeping across the world from Bangladesh to Brazil, but it has turned aside in its course and passed India by. The most persistent tendency in India has been to have too much government and too little administration; too many laws and too little justice; too many public servants and too little public service; too many controls and too little welfare. From the very first decade of the republic the steel claws of the permit-licence-quota raj were laid upon the national economy, and even today their grip continues with insignificant relaxation. Today the situation remains unchanged, – only the number of files has increased a thousandfold. Millions of manhours are wasted every day in coping with inane bureaucratic regulations and a torrential spate of amendments. Legal redress is so time-consuming enough to make infinity intelligible. A lawsuit once started in India is the nearest thing to eternal life ever seen on this earth. Close to two million cases are pending in the eighteen High Courts alone, and more than 2,10,000 cases in the Supreme Court for admission or final hearing or miscellaneous relief. History will record that the greatest mistake of the Indian Republic in the first forty years of its existence was to make far less investment in human resources — investment in education, family planning, nutrition and public health — than in brick and mortar, plants and factories. We had quantitative growth without qualitative development. Different parts of India still live in different centuries so far as basic amenities and cultural awareness are concerned. Also read: Private enterprise didn't fail in India. JN Tata's steel dream soared despite British ridicule Still plagued by three problems Small wonder that after forty-three years of independence, we are still plagued by three basic problems — poverty, unemployment, and foreign exchange trade deficit. India has 15 per cent of the world's population, but only 1.5 per cent of the world's income. In the four decades since we became a republic, our per capita income in real terms did not even double but increased by only 91 per cent. Today we are still the twenty-first poorest nation on earth. Perceptive observers in foreign countries where Indians work and prosper are baffled by one question — how does India, with its great human potential and natural resources, manage to remain poor? The answer is that we are not poor by nature but poor by policy. You would not be far wrong if you called India the world's leading expert in the art of perpetuating poverty. Most of our politicians and bureaucrats, untainted by knowledge of development in the outside world, have no desire to search for genes of ideas which deserve to be called 'a high-yielding variety of economics.' We are smugly reconciled to low yield from high ideals. India is rattling — and rattling violently — with spare human capacity. More than 30 million are registered on our 840 Employment Exchanges. According to objective estimates, there must be at least 20 million other unemployed who are not registered. In 1950, India ranked sixteenth in the list of exporting countries of the world; today it ranks forty-third. Using another yardstick, in 1950 India had 2.2 per cent of the world export market; today its share stands reduced to 0.45 per cent. Also read: Free education is mere jugglery of words. A hangover of anti-rational pre-Partition days Hope for the future There is no instant solution for our multitudinous problems and the short-term prospect may only be of shadows lengthening across the path, an objective overview would justify confidence in the long-term future of the country. In the affairs of nations, as in the world of elements, winds shift, tides ebb and flow, the ship rocks. Only let the anchor hold. The vitality of India is remarkable. The country does not have a powerful economy, but has all the raw materials to build one. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Indian economy is a sleeping giant who, if awakened, could make an impact on the global economy. A nation's worth is not measured merely by its gross national product, any more than an individual's worth is measured by his bank account. Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith remarked that while he had seen poverty in many countries of the world, he found one unusual attribute among the poor of India — 'There is richness in their poverty.' It is true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But it is true, in an even deeper sense, that eternal responsibility is also part of the price of liberty. Excessive authority, without liberty, is intolerable; but excessive liberty, without authority and without responsibility, soon becomes equally intolerable. De Tocqueville made the profound observation that liberty cannot stand alone but must be paired with a companion virtue: liberty and morality; liberty and law; liberty and justice; liberty and the common good; liberty and civic responsibility. The day will come when the 26 States of India will realize that in a profound sense they are culturally akin, ethnically identical, linguistically knit, and historically related. The greatest task before India today is to acquire a keener sense of national identity, to gain the wisdom to cherish its priceless heritage, and to create a cohesive society with the cement of Indian culture. We shall then celebrate the 15th day of August not as the Day of Independence but as the Day of Inter-dependence — the dependence of the States upon one another, the dependence of our numerous communities upon one another, the dependence of the many castes and clans upon one another — in the sure knowledge that we are one nation. This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. It is an excerpt from a monograph titled 'Forty-three years of Independence' published by the Forum of Free Enterprise in 1991. The original version can be accessed here.
Economic Times
28 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Opposition PDP, PC trash Omar Abdullah's proposed signature campaign for restoration of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir
Jammu and Kashmir's opposition parties have criticized Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's proposed signature campaign. The campaign aims to restore statehood. Opposition leaders call it a betrayal of public trust. They accuse Abdullah of normalizing the 2019 decisions. These decisions revoked Article 370. Sajad Lone suggests a resolution in the assembly. Waheed Para demands an apology from Abdullah. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Opposition parties in Jammu and Kashmir stated that the signature campaign in support of statehood proposed by chief minister Omar Abdullah is mockery and betrayal of the trust and mandate of the people reposed in the National Conference in the last assembly opposition People's Democratic Party and People's Conference legislators accused Abdullah of normalizing the decisions of August 5, 2019, when the BJP led government in New Delhi, abrogated Article 370 and 35 (A) and downgraded the erstwhile state of J&K into the two Union Territories of J&K and during his speech on August 15, here in Srinagar had said that he will no longer be silent on the issue of restoration of statehood and instead hit the streets and reach out to people in all 90 assembly constituencies across J&K. He said that his government will get their signatures in support of restoration of statehood which will be submitted before the BJP leader government in New Delhi and the Supreme Court. The SC while hearing the petition on restoration of statehood on August 14, gave eight weeks time to the central government to submit their response.'We will support any movement towards statehood. But please don't make a mockery of statehood. Let us approach the Supreme Court as a constitutional entity not as another 'Tom Dick and Harry. Signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity,' said Sajad Lone of People's Conference. He suggested that the NC led government should pass a strong resolution in the J&K assembly. 'Our resolutions are not binding on the Supreme Court, but inherent in them will be constitutional dignity and reflect will of people…Political or signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity,' said Lone asking, 'Name one event empirically in India or in the rest of the world where signature campaigns have altered legal interpretations. They are not even admissible.'The PC chief also referred to the 2007 signature campaign 'Safr-e-Azadi' of the jailed Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Yasin Malik. 'The signature campaign for independence was carried out by Yasin Malik also. How far did that campaign go,' Lone asked. He accused Abdullah of showing, 'disregard, disdain and contempt for the assembly that has made him the CM.''I beg you. Please stop this childish and immature attitude. We will support any campaign unconditionally. But please ensure that a resolution from the state assembly is also passed and sent to the Supreme Court,' said Lone, adding, 'Don't set the stage for denial of statehood. Act like a leader. Don't throw tantrums…This is a real ideological battle. This is not a video game.'The PC legislator from Handwara, who served as a minister in the last PDP-BJP government, asked Abdullah to explain 'whether he was shielding and protecting the state BJP and giving them the luxury of not taking a position on statehood, by not passing a resolution on statehood?'The PDP legislator from Pulwama, Waheed Para said that Abdullah owes an apology not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. 'With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status,' said Para, adding, 'This is not just retreat, it is betrayal.' The PDP leader said that the people of J&K gave Abdullah a historic mandate to fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre. 'If he has already surrendered, he must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep,' said Para.
