Supreme Court stays Mumbai blasts case verdict; says convicts need not surrender
Appearing for a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, pushed for a stay of the judgment primarily on the ground that it contained observations which would affect pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Why 12 men were acquitted after 18 years
The Bench ordered that the High Court judgment would not be treated as precedent by trial courts hearing MCOCA cases.
The apex court further issued notice to the former convicts on the State's appeal against the acquittal.
Justice Sundresh pointed out that some of the persons involved seemed to be Pakistan nationals. The State said they had committed the deed and left India. 'They were not arrested,' a State counsel informed.
In a brief mentioning of the case by Maharashtra on June 23 regarding a technical hitch in the case records, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had remarked that a stay of a judgment of acquittal was 'rarest of rare'.
The Bombay High Court had concluded that the prosecution 'utterly failed' to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It had set aside the 2025 judgment of the Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court, which had awarded death penalty to five and life imprisonment to seven others.
On July 11, 2006, a series of seven bomb blasts occurred in the first-class compartments of seven suburban local trains of Mumbai between 6:23 p.m. and 6:29 p.m. The coordinated explosions led to the tragic loss of 187 lives and left approximately 824 people injured. eom
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
SC takes note of photographs showing manual scavenging at apex court's gate
The Supreme Court has taken note of photographs showing manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning being done at one of the gates of the apex court. "We are also constrained to observe that photographs have been shown to us that the manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning is being done at gate F of this court as well. Let the concerned officer of the Public Works Department (PWD) file a reply to the above applications," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia (since retired) and Aravind Kumar said in its August 6 order. Justice Dhulia retired on August 9. The top court was dealing with applications filed in a public interest litigation, which has raised the issue of manual scavenging. In its order, the bench made the East Delhi Municipal Corporation a party-respondent in the matter. It directed the corporation to file a response to the applications explaining why manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning were still going on with manual labour, exposing such workers to the risk of their lives and that too, without proper gear as shown in photographs attached to the plea. "It is made clear that if satisfactory reply is not received on the next date, we will have no option but to direct the registration of an FIR against such officer(s) who are exposing the workers to the risk of their lives," the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on September 10. In a verdict delivered in the matter in October 2023, the top court observed that manual scavengers have lived in bondage, systematically trapped in inhuman conditions for a long time. It had asked the Centre and states to completely eradicate manual scavenging across the country. Passing a slew of directions, the apex court asked the central and state governments to pay Rs 30 lakh as compensation to the next of kin of those who die while cleaning sewers.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Over 80 publicly flogged in Afghanistan in past month amid human rights concerns
Kabul [Afghanistan], August 10 (ANI): More than 80 men and women have been subjected to public floggings across Afghanistan over the past month, raising alarm among human rights groups about ongoing abuses and a lack of judicial transparency under Taliban rule, Khamma Press to Khamma Press, citing a weekly report released on Saturday by the Taliban's Supreme Court, 31 individuals were publicly flogged in the last week alone in several provinces, including Maidan Wardak, Kabul, Zabul, Kapisa, Baghlan, and court did not reveal the identities or specific charges of those punished, though other official statements confirmed that 14 people, including one woman, were flogged in Kabul and Zabul for alleged crimes such as alcohol sales, trafficking narcotic pills, and engaging in extramarital court also reported that 10 people in Kabul and Maidan Wardak were punished for alleged theft and drug-related offences. In contrast, eight others in Kabul and Kapisa faced similar punishments for drug trafficking, Khamma Press total, Taliban officials say 81 individuals have been publicly flogged in recent weeks, with punishments frequently carried out in front of gathered crowds, despite repeated international condemnation and calls to end corporal punishment, which many human rights organisations regard as a form of Rights defenders argue that these floggings highlight the Taliban's continued disregard for fair trial procedures and legal standards, exacerbating concerns over the country's worsening human rights landscape, Khamma Press warn that such practices are further eroding any prospects for judicial reform in Afghanistan and deepening the Taliban's isolation from the global practice of public flogging is not new to the Taliban regime, as this is not the first time they have implemented such punishments. The practice was prominent when the militant group was in power in the country before the US and Allied forces invaded it and established a new government backed by the US and allied powers in since their withdrawal from the country back in August 2021, the Taliban again took over Afghanistan, regaining control. (ANI)
