Justice not done, will move higher courts, say kin of Malegaon blast victims
67-year-old Liyaqat Shaikh was speaking to media persons in Malegaon after the special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the case including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.
Six persons including his daughter Farheen were killed and 101 injured in the blast in the north Maharashtra town on September 29, 2008.Recalling the incident, Shaikh, a driver by profession, said Farheen had left house to buy 'vada-pav' (a snack) at Bhikku Chowk on that day."I heard the sound of a blast. We lived near the blast site, in a tin-roof house. I got out of the house to look for my daughter but could not find her. It was dark outside. Somebody said there was a girl among the injured, so my wife and I went to the hospital where we found her in a bad situation," he said.
Then Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare had arrested the accused persons with enough evidence, he said."The verdict of the court is wrong. We will go to the Supreme Court to seek justice," Shaikh added.Nisar Ahmed, whose son Sayyed Azhar was one of those who died in the blast, said they did not get justice and will approach higher courts. Victims of any blast, whichever religion they may belong to, should get justice, he said.Usman Khan, whose nephew Irfan Khan died in the blast, said Irfan drove an auto rickshaw and had gone out to have tea at Bhikku Chowk when the blast ripped through the place. He was shifted to Mumbai in a badly injured condition and died at the government hospital after 10 hours of treatment, Khan said.He was not happy with the verdict, he said.
"First some Muslims were arrested in the case, and they got a clean chit later. Now these people too were not convicted, so who was the culprit?" he asked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court verdict on student suicides should move the needle on mental health of youngsters
On July 25, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment of profound constitutional and societal significance. A Division Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta addressed one of the most tragic, yet inadequately acknowledged issues, confronting Indian society today: The alarming rise in student suicides. The Court invoked its constitutional authority to acknowledge the scale of the mental health crisis in educational institutions and provided an actionable framework for redress. The SC has issued 15 binding directions applicable to all schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres across the country, aimed at institutionalising mental-health support and safeguarding the psychological well-being of students. The gravity of its concern was encapsulated in the apex court's unequivocal recognition that the current education system, given its obsession with competitive examinations, has turned toxic. The pursuit of learning — ideally a joyful and liberating experience — has been reduced to a mechanical, high-pressure ordeal centred on ranks, grades, and performance metrics. The soul of education, the Court observed, has been 'distorted'. The verdict asks all educational institutions to adopt a uniform mental-health policy, taking cues from existing frameworks such as the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the Ministry of Education's MANODARPAN initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. The Court has also made it compulsory for schools and coaching centres with more than 100 students to appoint at least one qualified counsellor or psychologist. The judgment directs educational spaces to avoid harmful practices such as batch segregation based on academic performance, public shaming, or setting unrealistic academic goals. Among other things, the Court also directed institutions to have written protocols for emergency mental health referrals and display suicide prevention helpline numbers prominently in hostels, classrooms, and websites. This verdict has not emerged in a vacuum. It's a direct judicial response to the devastating data published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its 2022 report, 'Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India'. The figures are chilling: 1,70,924 suicides were recorded in 2022, of which 13,044 were students, translating to nearly 36 student suicides per day. Alarmingly, 2,248 of these deaths were attributed to examination failure alone. Over the past two decades, student suicides have more than doubled. Between 2011 and 2022, suicides among male students rose by 99 per cent, and among female students by 92 per cent. Despite this spiraling crisis, institutional mechanisms for mental-health support within India's educational architecture have remained fragmented, voluntary, and largely ineffective. The Supreme Court's judgment seeks to bridge this gap, much like it did in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997), where the absence of legislative measures on workplace sexual harassment compelled the Court to issue interim guidelines. In Vishaka, those judicial directions later became the blueprint for a central statute. The present judgment has similar transformative potential. It fills a policy vacuum, asserts constitutional accountability, and paves the way for legislative reform. In terms of timelines, the judgment is characteristically firm. All states and Union Territories are required to notify appropriate rules and regulations within two months, while the Union government must submit a compliance affidavit within 90 days. The timeline signals the Court's intent to not merely issue guidelines but to ensure they are implemented. The constitutional implications of the verdict are manifold. First, it reinforces the idea that the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to mental well-being and a dignified educational environment. Second, it builds on the Court's jurisprudence in Unnikrishnan JP vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka, where the Right to Education was read as an essential component of the Right to Life. The SC has now brought mental health within the domain of constitutional protection, making it not merely a policy concern but a justiciable right. The verdict also critiques the structural violence that's inherent in India's educational ecosystem. Coaching centres have become infamous for their conveyor-belt pedagogy and relentless pressure. The commodification of education, where success is narrowly defined by entrance exam results, has eroded the developmental and humanistic objectives of learning. By compelling educational institutions to re-centre their focus on student well-being, the Court is reminding the nation that education is a public good, not a private transaction. However, while the judgment lays a robust foundation, the real challenge lies ahead in its enforcement. Judicial pronouncements, however well-intentioned, require vigilant implementation. The failure of several state governments to fully operationalise the Vishaka Guidelines until the enactment of the 2013 legislation is a cautionary tale. The central and state governments must now rise to the occasion. More importantly, educational institutions must internalise the fact that compliance is not merely a legal compulsion but a moral imperative. Preventing even a single suicide means preserving a future, shielding a family from unbearable loss, and affirming the constitutional promise of a life of dignity. The writer is a Kashmir-based lawyer and national president of J&K Students Association
Hans India
14 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor Breaks Ranks With Rahul Gandhi Over Trump's 'Dead Economy' Remark
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has publicly contradicted party colleague Rahul Gandhi's support for US President Donald Trump's characterization of India as a "dead economy," creating another visible fissure within the opposition party's leadership. Speaking to reporters on Friday, the Thiruvananthapuram parliamentarian firmly rejected Trump's economic assessment, stating simply that "this is not the case, and we all know it." His response directly countered Gandhi's endorsement of the American President's remarks made just one day earlier. Trump's inflammatory comments emerged this week as part of his broader criticism of India's relationship with Russia, where he declared indifference toward India-Russia cooperation and dismissed both nations as having "dead economies." The remarks accompanied his announcement of 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods effective August 1. Rahul Gandhi, serving as Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, had embraced Trump's economic critique as validation of his criticism against the Modi government. Gandhi claimed that everyone except the Prime Minister and Finance Minister recognized India's economic struggles, alleging that the BJP had deliberately damaged the economy to benefit industrialist Gautam Adani. Tharoor's dissent represents the latest indication of growing tensions between the senior Congress leader and his party's official positions. Unlike Gandhi's harsh governmental criticism, Tharoor refrained from attacking the Modi administration while rejecting Trump's characterization. The government has strongly defended India's economic performance through Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal's parliamentary statements. Goyal emphasized India's status as the world's fastest-growing major economy and its trajectory toward becoming the third-largest global economy, while asserting that India would protect its national interests regarding US tariff implications. This disagreement compounds existing friction between Tharoor and Congress leadership, particularly regarding his public support for Operation Sindoor, which conflicts with the party's official stance. Tharoor has consistently prioritized national interests over party positioning, stating that "the nation comes before the party" when defending military operations. The rift deepened when the government appointed Tharoor to head the Operation Sindoor delegation to the United States without Congress party nomination. Sources indicate he declined participation in parliamentary debates on the operation, reportedly unwilling to contradict his established positions for party messaging purposes. This pattern of public disagreement highlights broader challenges within Congress regarding message discipline and ideological coherence, particularly when national security issues intersect with partisan political considerations.
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Congress tried to ‘make Hindus appear as terrorists' after Malegaon blast: Devendra Fadnavis
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Friday alleged that the Congress had tried to paint Hindus as terrorists after the 2008 Malegaon blast and officer-bearers of the RSS and Hindutvadis were targeted in a planned manner. CM Fadnavis said the Hindu terror theory was created to show a particular community that the government was doing a balancing act.(PTI File Photo) Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nagpur, Fadnavis claimed the then UPA government indulged in vote bank politics and coined terms like "Hindu terror" and "Bhagwa Aatankwad" (saffron terrorism) when terror attacks were taking place in the world, which were by Islamic extremists. Asked about a former ATS officer's claim that he was ordered to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in the blast case, the chief minister said the conspiracy behind the case is being exposed before everyone. A special court in Mumbai on Thursday acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Purohit, in the blast case, noting that there was "no reliable and cogent evidence" against them. Fadnavis said the Hindu terror theory was created to show a particular community that the government was doing a balancing act. He said this was a conspiracy to target office-bearers of the RSS and Hindutvadis, and some of them were arrested as well. However, no evidence was found against them. "I think that now their conspiracy is being exposed. Islamic terror was there that time, and is present now as well, but no one said all Muslims are terrorists. However, the Congress had made attempts to make all Hindus appear as terrorists at that time," said Fadnavis.
