Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases

News18

6 days ago

The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system
The acquittal of all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court on July 21 has stunned the nation. The devastating attacks, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, led to a trial court convicting the accused in 2015. But the higher court overturned that verdict, citing the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence. This case reflects a broader trend in India's criminal justice system—prosecutions in high-profile terror cases and other serious crimes often collapse due to weak evidence, procedural delays, and political interference, leaving victims and the public disillusioned.
There are legal and political factors behind these failures. Drawing on the Mumbai case, the 2G spectrum scandal, and systemic trends, one can understand why convictions often remain elusive.
Robust evidence is the foundation of any successful prosecution, yet criminal cases in the country often stumble here. In the Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court flagged unreliable witnesses, flawed identification parades, and inadmissible confessions allegedly extracted through torture.
The prosecution couldn't even specify what type of bombs were used—an indicator of unpreparedness. This evidentiary fragility is not limited to terror cases. For instance, in the 2017 2G spectrum case, all accused, including A Raja and K Kanimozhi, were acquitted because the CBI failed to produce sufficient documents or reliable witnesses after years of investigation.
A 2019 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report reinforces this view, citing uncorroborated testimonies and coerced confessions as recurring issues. Courts demand strong, verifiable proof—when agencies rely on shaky foundations, acquittals become inevitable.
Another chronic flaw is the lack of a comprehensive witness protection law. Witnesses often retract statements or refuse to testify due to fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue, noting that laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) offer only limited protection. In cases involving organised crime, threats from powerful syndicates further weaken the prosecution. Strengthening evidence collection and ensuring witness safety are thus essential reforms.
Procedural delays and systemic inefficiencies
The nation's criminal justice system is bogged down by procedural delays and inefficiencies, which undermine even the strongest cases. Investigations often involve multiple agencies, causing coordination failures. The 2002 Akshardham attack case is a clear example—the Supreme Court, in 2014, criticised the investigation's lack of diligence after a series of handovers between agencies.
Special courts, meant to fast-track serious crime trials, often share space with regular courts, creating backlogs. The Vidhi report points out that even high-profile cases under UAPA or MCOCA languish for years due to overburdened dockets and limited resources. The Mumbai train blasts case, for instance, took nearly two decades to reach a final verdict—long enough for evidence to degrade and witness recollections to fade.
Laws like UAPA permit prolonged pre-charge detention—up to 180 days, compared to 24 hours under the Criminal Procedure Code. Agencies sometimes detain suspects without building strong cases, assuming that the legal process itself serves as punishment. But once cases reach higher courts, judges scrutinise them more rigorously, often leading to acquittals, as seen in the Mumbai case. Better agency coordination and court infrastructure are key to reducing delays and improving outcomes.
Judicial scepticism and the misuse of stringent laws
The country has stringent laws—like the now-defunct TADA, repealed POTA, UAPA, and Maharashtra's MCOCA—to empower law enforcement against terror and organised crime. But when misapplied, they often lead to prosecution failures.
In the Mumbai case, the prosecution leaned heavily on MCOCA, but the High Court found the supporting evidence too weak, resulting in acquittals. The Vidhi report highlights that POTA Review Committees found no prima facie evidence in 1,006 out of 1,529 cases by 2005—indicating misuse.
Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail is denied if courts see any reasonable ground for guilt. This leads to prolonged detentions without trial. However, higher courts remain wary of overreach. For example, in the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, all 39 accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence beyond coerced confessions. Judicial scepticism is widespread, even in financial scam cases, where agencies detain suspects but fail to produce solid evidence.
Judges play a key role—no matter how stringent the law, a judge's discretion determines its application. When evidence is weak, courts hesitate to convict, especially in an era where judicial outlooks are influenced by liberal constitutional values.
The perception that the legal process is the punishment has become more entrenched. Agencies may use long detentions to pressure suspects, but without credible evidence, courts intervene—leading to collapses like that of the Mumbai case. Thus, the focus must return to meticulous evidence collection and responsible application of law.
Political interference and federal tensions
Political dynamics often complicate criminal prosecutions. Federalism-based conflicts between the Centre and states delay investigations. Agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) require state cooperation. The controversial National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) proposal failed after 14 states opposed it, citing threats to federal autonomy. Similarly, Gujarat's 2015 GCTOC Bill was delayed due to a lack of Presidential assent, stalling state-level efforts.
Political alignments can also shape outcomes. The 2G spectrum case offers a telling example.
On December 21, 2017, a special CBI court in New Delhi acquitted all accused—including A Raja and K. Kanimozhi—calling the case baseless. The court noted that despite one and a half years of waiting, the CBI failed to bring in evidence or witnesses. Judge OP Saini expressed frustration, saying the agency 'couldn't care less".
This came at a time when the DMK appeared poised for a resurgence after J Jayalalithaa's death, while the BJP, with actor Rajinikanth hesitating to join politics, seemed to seek renewed ties with M Karunanidhi—its one-time ally during the Vajpayee era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had even been photographed with Karunanidhi's family just months before the verdict.
Was the CBI 'nudged" to go soft on DMK leaders?
Media trials further complicate matters. In high-profile cases, widespread coverage often convinces the public that an accused is guilty long before a court weighs the evidence. But judges—aware of media excesses—may be repelled by aggressive reportage, affecting their outlook. Public perception, shaped by these narratives, pushes agencies to act fast, sometimes cutting corners. But legal outcomes depend on facts, not headlines.
Reducing political interference and improving Centre-state coordination are vital to restoring integrity in prosecutions.
Legal representation and the prosecution-defence gap
The outcome of trials often hinges on the quality of legal representation. There's a stark imbalance between well-resourced defence lawyers and overburdened or undertrained state prosecutors.
To fix this, the nation must invest in the training and independence of public prosecutors. Only then can they counter the skill and strategy of top defence lawyers.
Road ahead: Reforming the system
The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system.
Evidentiary lapses, systemic delays, misuse of harsh laws, political meddling, and lopsided legal representation all contribute to failed prosecutions. These failures cut across terror cases, corruption scandals, and violent crimes, leaving victims without closure and eroding public faith in the system.
Reforms are urgent. Investigative agencies need better training. Witness protection laws must be enacted. Court infrastructure must expand to reduce backlogs. Political interference must be checked by preserving institutional autonomy. And prosecution teams must be strengthened to ensure fair competition in the courtroom.
top videos
View all
Justice in India cannot remain hostage to inefficiencies and influence. A legal system that upholds fairness, efficiency, and accountability is the only way to deliver justice—and restore faith that those behind mass killings, like the Mumbai train blasts, will face the consequences of their crimes.
The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
Bombay High Court judiciary justice Mumbai train blasts
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 22, 2025, 18:45 IST
News opinion Opinion | Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.