2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Supreme Court Stays HC Order, But Frees Accused Stay Out of Jail
/ Jul 24, 2025, 01:44PM IST
In a major development, the Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court's recent order acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The top court intervened after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned that the High Court verdict could set a damaging precedent for other cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court ruling will not be treated as precedent. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had set aside the 2015 trial court verdict, citing lack of evidence, invalid confessions, and failure of the prosecution to establish guilt.#supremecourt #bombayhighcourt #mumbaitrainblasts #711case #mocca #terroracquittals #indiancourts #711verdict #justiceforvictims #scstayorder
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NMC has asked disabled students to declare ‘what they cannot do'. This is illegal — and cruel
It was a typical exhausting Friday at my medical college. I returned home, drained from the day, expecting nothing more than dinner and rest. Instead, what awaited me was an email from the Supreme Court of India. I was being directed — on short notice — to assess a NEET-UG aspirant with a disability the very next morning and submit my report in a sealed envelope by Monday. The court had rejected two previous assessments by AIIMS Nagpur and AIIMS Delhi. Why? Because both had done what most institutions do best — calculate percentages of disability instead of assessing a student's ability to pursue medicine. The student was Om Rathod — 88 per cent disabled due to muscular dystrophy — and yet, burning with determination to become a doctor. What the court wanted was not a number, but an answer: Can he, with the right support, study medicine? That assessment led to a landmark Supreme Court judgment — a rare beacon of inclusive justice — directing the National Medical Commission (NMC) to revise its outdated and discriminatory guidelines for MBBS admissions. But what came next — just last week — is a betrayal not just of that spirit, but of the law. The NMC's 'interim guidelines' came two days before the counselling deadline. Buried within them was a new clause: A self-declaration affidavit. It asks candidates with disabilities to legally affirm — on stamp paper — what they cannot do. Can they stand on one leg? Can they climb stairs unaided? The real question is: Why isn't the NMC reading the Constitution? I asked Om, the same young man whose courage moved the apex court to act, whether he could truthfully answer those questions. 'No,' he said. And he shouldn't have to. These questions are humiliating, ableist, and illegal. They punish you for not performing like a non-disabled body — even though the very idea of 'reasonable accommodation' is to remove barriers so people can perform. I assessed Om's functional competency. He uses a mobility scooter. I use callipers and crutches myself. Neither of us can bear weight on our affected limbs. Neither of us can climb stairs without help. But both of us made it through medicine. So what, exactly, is NMC trying to assess? The committee behind these guidelines clearly has no understanding of functional ability or of what the Supreme Court ordered. In its first meeting in February — on record in the Anmol v UOI case — the NMC agreed it was time to rename 'Disability Assessment Boards' to 'Ability Assessment Boards,' and to define what reasonable accommodations actually mean. None of that made it into the final document. Instead, the NMC waited till the Court went on summer recess and dropped this vague, ableist document without public consultation — just days before the counselling deadline. This delay has created chaos once again. A family from Odisha has been stuck in Delhi for over a week waiting for their son's assessment. In the South, students from Telangana and Andhra are being forced to travel across states to Kerala or Tamil Nadu. The Court had explicitly ordered one assessment centre per state. Clearly, the NMC wasn't listening. It also wasn't listening when the court mandated that these assessment boards must include doctors with disabilities, to train them and guard against ableist bias. That, too, never happened. So what we get are absurd rejections like the one from Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital in Tamil Nadu: 'Since the patient is wheelchair-bound, she cannot do coordinated activities of the lower limb. Not eligible.' Wheelchair-bound? Patient? This is not only inaccurate, it's insulting. The same state has a gastro-surgeon with polio performing liver transplants and a urologist doing surgeries using a standing wheelchair. The organisation Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change has multiple wheelchair-user (not patients) doctors thriving and flourishing. Perhaps the doctors rejecting these students should consult their own colleagues before making such statements — or, at the very least, read the Omkar Gond v UOI (2024) judgment. What makes this even more damning is that there's still no appellate body in place, even though the Court mandated one. That means these students — already exhausted, humiliated, and denied — have no path to appeal unless they somehow make it to the high court or the Supreme Court again. But how many can afford that? How many have the strength? It's clear now that neither the NMC nor DGHS has learned anything from the multiple rap-on-the-knuckle SC orders. They continue to deny disabled aspirants, recycling the same experts who wrote the guidelines the Court already struck down. The result? A process that is not just broken — it is cruel. This isn't just a policy failure. It is a systemic refusal to listen, to learn, to evolve. The experts with lived experience are the ones who navigate this reality every day. Until our institutions learn to value lived experience over outdated assumptions, the cycle of discrimination will continue — wrapped neatly in a sealed envelope, marked urgent, and delivered into the void where justice should have been. The writer is a medical doctor at University College of Medical sciences, Delhi, and SC SC-appointed expert in Om Rathod v DGHS and Anmol v UOI SC judgements. Views are personal
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
2008 Malegaon blast case: Who is Pragya Thakur? Firebrand sadhvi once 'tortured' in ATS custody, now stands acquitted
1 2 NEW DELHI: Former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit on Thursday welcomed their acquittal by a special court in Mumbai in the 2008 Malegaon blast case , in which six people were killed and over 100 injured. Calling the verdict a victory for the saffron order, Thakur said: 'Aaj bhagwa ki vijay hui hai, nyay ki jeet hui hai (today Bhagwa has won, justice has won). Jisne bhi bhagwa ko badnaam kiya bhagwaan use saza dega (whoever insulted bhagwa, God will punish them).' 'This case was not just fought by me but by Bhagwa. Mera pura jeewan kalankit kar diya tha (my whole life had been disgraced),' she added. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Thakur, who was arrested in October 2008 and spent over eight years in jail, said her life was 'ruined' because of the case. 'I was able to survive only because I am a sanyasi,' she told the court. She also said her acquittal was not just a personal win, 'but a win for every 'bhagwa' (saffron).' The 2008 blast and investigation On 29 September 2008, a low-intensity bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded near a mosque in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town about 200km from Mumbai, killing six people and injuring 101. Thakur was initially arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which claimed the motorbike used in the blast was registered in her name. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is this legal? Access all TV channels without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo The prosecution had also alleged she attended a meeting in Bhopal where revenge for the 2006 Malegaon blasts was discussed and that she offered manpower for the attack. Investigations pointed to a wider conspiracy involving members of the Abhinav Bharat organisation, which prosecutors said aimed to avenge attacks on Hindus and establish a 'Central Hindu Government (Aryawart)'. The case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency ( NIA ) in 2011. In 2015, special public prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged the NIA had asked her to 'go soft' on the accused. The NIA later filed a supplementary chargesheet in 2016, giving a clean chit to Thakur and accusing the ATS of planting RDX traces to frame Purohit. Despite this, in December 2017, the special court ruled that seven accused would stand trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were dropped. A trial spanning over a decade The trial formally began on December 3, 2018 and included testimony from 323 prosecution witnesses — 37 of whom turned hostile. The case saw dramatic courtroom moments, including an instance in 2019 when Thakur, then a sitting MP, complained about the "dusty" courtroom and the "dirty and small" chair. Final statements of the accused were recorded in 2024, followed by the examination of eight defence witnesses. Political career and controversy Thakur, a self-described sanyasi (hermit), was released on bail by the Bombay high court in April 2017. In 2019, she contested and won the Bhopal Lok Sabha seat on a BJP ticket, defeating senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh. However, she was not fielded in the 2024 elections. Thakur has maintained that her arrest was politically motivated and aimed at pushing the narrative of 'saffron terror' — ad term she attributes to former Union minister P Chidambaram. 'I was falsely implicated in the case to endorse the bogey of saffron terrorism,' she has said. After her candidature was announced in 2019, she said she was inexperienced in politics but determined to 'bring honour to saffron', which she claimed was maligned by opposition parties. Thakur also told reporters that she had taken sanyas (renunciation) two years before the 2008 blast.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to Telangana Speaker: decide on disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within 3 months
The Supreme Court Thursday asked the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had defected to the ruling Congress expeditiously and not later than three months. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih was hearing petitions filed by BRS leaders who sought a directive to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar for timely action on disqualification proceedings. The BRS had initially moved the Telangana High Court, where a single-judge bench gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions. On appeal by the Speaker, a division bench on November 22, 2024, set aside the single-judge order and asked the Speaker to decide the petitions in a reasonable time. Setting aside the Telangana High Court division bench's order, the Supreme Court said the very objective of the anti-defection law was to curb the evil of political defections, and the only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker was to avoid delay and to ensure expeditious decision on disqualification petitions. The bench noted that the Speaker, in his capacity as Tribunal, in deciding disqualification petitions, does not enjoy any 'constitutional immunity'. It asked the Telangana Speaker not to allow the MLAs, against whom disqualification petitions have been filed, to protract the proceedings. The court said an adverse inference can be drawn against any MLA who attempts a delaying tactic. The ruling pointed out that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the petitions seeking disqualification for almost seven months and said, 'If we do not issue any directions, it will amount to allowing the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of 'operation successful, patient dead'.' Noting the recurring instances of Speakers allegedly sitting on disqualification proceedings, the Supreme Court also asked the Parliament to review the present mechanism contemplated under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. 'Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman (with) the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,' the Supreme Court said. The BRS filed the disqualification petitions before the Telangana Assembly Speaker in March-April 2024. This was after Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkat Rao, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, who were originally elected on a BRS ticket in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, switched to the Congress.
