When terror walks free: 7/11 verdict and crisis of India's criminal justice system

India Today

2 days ago

Nearly two decades after the deadly 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, which killed over 180 people and injured more than 800, the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit all 12 convicted accused has sent shockwaves across the country. While judicial independence and the rule of law are the pillars of our democracy, the complete collapse of the criminal justice system in a case of this magnitude raises grave questions—not just legal, but also national security-related.advertisementIn September 2015, after a nine-year-long investigation led by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court convicted 12 of 13 accused in connection with the coordinated bombings. Five were sentenced to death, seven to life imprisonment, and one was acquitted. One of the death-row convicts later died in 2021 in jail due to COVID-19. However, on 21st July 2025, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted all 12, including the deceased.Investigative Hurdles Then, Judicial Acquittal NowThe court's observations on the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, delayed identifications, lack of corroborative material, and doubts over the voluntariness of confessions are rooted in procedural rigour. It is worth noting that the special court found sufficient ground for conviction based on the same evidence.
To summarily discard all evidence and confession-based inputs is not only unfair to the victims and the investigation but also potentially dangerous. These were not petty offenders; they were individuals linked to known terrorist organisations. To assume they will peacefully reintegrate into society is nave. On the contrary, there is a very real and chilling possibility that their release could enable them to re-establish ties with militant networks and plot future attacks under the cover of judicial exoneration.Eroding Trust, Empowering TerrorThis verdict impacts more than just victims' families or police credibility; it undermines public trust in the entire criminal justice system. When justice appears denied in major terror cases, people begin to lose faith in due process, leading to calls for media trials or even extrajudicial actions, as seen in the Hyderabad rapists encounter case. This risks pushing India toward a vigilante mindset where emotion overrides institutions.Such judgments also weaken India's global image as a nation tough on terrorism. Actions like the Balakot strikes, Operation Sindoor, and strong declarations such as 'Any act of terror will be considered an act of war' projected strength, but the 7/11 acquittals create an impression, both domestically and abroad, that India remains a 'soft state' on terror.advertisementFor agencies like the ATS and NIA, the outcome is deeply demoralizing. Years of high-risk investigation and sacrifice feel dismissed, potentially deterring future action. At a time of rising global threats, India cannot afford a justice system that weakens morale and signals impunity to its adversaries.Justice and National Security Must CoexistThis is not an argument for abandoning due process or fair trial, but a call for judicial sensitivity in cases involving national trauma and security threats. A purely procedural lens risks undermining public trust, morale, and security.With the Supreme Court staying the Bombay High Court's acquittal in the 7/11 case on July 24, 2025, it must now re-examine the matter with a security-conscious approach. Mass-casualty terrorism cannot go unpunished, nor can suspects be freed only to rejoin militant networks.The acquittals are a wake-up call for systemic reform across investigation, prosecution, and adjudication.India's colonial-era criminal justice system, rooted in rigid procedures and outdated evidentiary norms, is ill-equipped for modern terrorism. Terrorists exploit encrypted tools and leave little evidence, yet the system still demands traditional proofs like eyewitnesses years later.While protecting civil liberties remains vital, blind adherence to outdated norms must not compromise justice in high-risk national security cases.advertisementJudiciary Must IntrospectThe recent acquittal compels the judiciary to engage in serious self-reflection. How can two courts, examining the same evidence, arrive at such radically different outcomes—one imposing death sentences, the other granting complete acquittals? This stark divergence raises troubling concerns about the consistency, objectivity and internal coherence of our justice delivery system. Was the evidence so ambiguous that it led to a miscarriage of justice at the trial stage? Or does this contradiction reflect deeper issues, such as subjective judicial interpretation or the sway of elite legal advocacy?The involvement of Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and now Senior Advocate, in representing two terror-accused adds complexity. While fair legal representation is a fundamental right, the participation of a former top judge raises ethical and institutional concerns. His stature could unintentionally influence judicial peers or affect how proceedings are perceived. Even without legal impropriety, such involvement in high-stakes cases calls for regulatory scrutiny toensure judicial processes remain above reproach, both in law and in public perception, especially in matters of national security.Key Reforms NeededTo protect India's internal security and ensure justice in terrorism cases, judicial reform and institutional introspection are essential. The criminal justice system comprises of the police, prosecution, and judiciary. While courts often question the competence of investigators and prosecutors, they too must be held accountable, especially in high-stakes terror trials and sensitive criminal cases.advertisementWhile investigative agencies like the ATS and state intelligence wings, though rooted in colonial-era policing, have tried to keep pace with changing technology like electronic surveillance, cyber forensics, and multilingual intelligence, the judiciary must now catch up to ensure these technological advances result in effective convictions and timely justice.Laws like the UAPA, MCOCA, and CrPC are evolving to address encrypted data, foreign handlers, and proxy warfare. Yet, judicial delays, inconsistent rulings, and external influences continue to hinder outcomes.Reforms must include specialized training not only for investigators but also for judges and prosecutors in national security law to help balance civil liberties with national interest. Simultaneously strengthening witness protection and forensic protocols is equally crucial. Eyewitnesses mostly succumb to threats even from big criminals, not to mention terrorists having support from our neighbouring country. While the investigative and legal frameworks are adapting, the judiciary must evolve in parallel to preserve coherence, credibility, and integrity in India's fight against terrorism.advertisementThis isn't about overriding judicial independence, but aligning it with modern security needs. Justice cannot function in isolation, blind to its consequences. The 7/11 acquittals are more than a legal outcome; they test India's institutional maturity.With the Supreme Court staying the High Court's order, it must now revisit the case not just in legal terms, but in the spirit of national accountability. Can a system that finds no one guilty for Mumbai's deadliest train attack truly claim to have delivered justice?India must ensure its justice system is not only fair and impartial, but alert, modern, and strong enough to face any challenge, including terrorism. The time to introspect is now.(Ashok Kumar is a Retd IPS officer and former DGP of Uttarakhand. He is presently serving as Vice Chancellor of the Sports University of Haryana, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana.)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch