Calls for judicial reform grow after Bombay HC acquits all in the 2006 Mumbai blasts case
The Bombay High Court on July 21, 2025, acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case, overturning a 2015 verdict by a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court that had sentenced five of them to death and seven to life imprisonment. On July 11, 2006, a series of bomb blasts ripped through seven Western Suburban Railway coaches of a local train in Mumbai city, killing 189 people and injuring 824. The blasts happened around 6:30 pm, during the evening rush hour, in the overcrowded trains. Acquitting all accused in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, the Bombay High Court picked holes in the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) submissions, noting that it “utterly failed to establish offences beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on each count.” The Bombay HC observed that among the aspects the prosecution failed to establish are the trustworthiness of the witnesses who identified the accused and what kind of explosives were used. It also held that confessional statements of the accused were “not found to be truthful”, and accepted the defence’s claim that the accused were tortured into making the confessions.
The HC also dismissed the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused, noting that the Special Executive Officer (SEO) who conducted it lacked the authority to do so.
Terrorists get away in India if they manage to subvert judicial processes for longer than a decade. The playbook is simple. Radical outfits continuously masquerade, using several foreign names of different organizations, presumably engaged in charitable and humanitarian work, and collect massive amounts of cash from different parts of the country. Apart from this massive hawala money, also trickles in from various foreign sources, to create a huge secret terror fund. When a terror act happens, this fund is immediately used to hire the most expensive lawyers to fight for the terrorists, sabotage investigations, and whip up a frenzied campaign in the media in order to compromise the whole investigative process. Then comes the terror and criminal part, where threat calls are issued to families of victims, lawyers, police officers, jail authorities, and journalists to create a climate of fear. Remember, 12 judges excused themselves, for undisclosed reasons, from hearing the case of Atiq Ahmed gangster-turned-politician in the Umesh Pal murder case, and for having links with LeT and ISI.
In contrast, India’s long-drawn judicial processes revolve around trivial technicalities, while conveniently overlooking the larger picture of fundamentalists perpetrating horrifying violence on unarmed innocent men, women, and children, with that of even primitive countries like Yemen, which boasts of iron justice firmly grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. The unique feature of the judicial system in many Middle Eastern countries is that the affected family is an integral part of the entire judicial process from A to Z. Even the final verdict of the Supreme Court of Yemen is subject to approval by the family, be it exoneration or execution. This becomes evident from the ongoing Nimisha Priya case, where the affected family of the Yemeni national will consider whether to approve the death sentence awarded to Nimisha Priya or grant her pardon in lieu of a ‘diya‘, or blood money. Contrast this with what is happening in India.
‘Law and Order’ has been, without foresight, classified as a State subject. People are facing everyday dastardly terrorist violence, wanton killings, abduction and horrifying rapes, child rapes, coerced religious conversions, and disappearance of women. More than 13.13 lakh girls and women went missing in the country in the three years between 2019 and 2021, with Madhya Pradesh accounting for the highest at nearly two lakhs, closely followed by West Bengal. What is the remedy for these affected families?
In India, each State has its own police force, which is the sole authority to register an FIR, arrest the accused, investigate the case, prepare a charge sheet, and submit it to the jurisdictional Court. The affected people have a Hobson’s choice in the matter. In ancient societies, for all kinds of offences, the affected families had the right to exact revenge, but with the emergence of modern societies and countries, it was commonly accepted that the State was better equipped to take up the burden and expenditure of the entire investigation and judicial processes. But the lacunae were the exclusion of the affected family at each and every stage. They were effectively reduced to being a helpless spectator. Thus, families of 189 people who were killed in the Mumbai terror attack and the families of 824 injured people have zero option but to watch with consternation as the 12 accused walk away, because the court felt that the prosecution failed to prove the case! This would never have happened in any other country.
Be it the police, government pleader, or judges, they all belong to impersonal organizations, which do not feel the pain of the affected families. When the court acquits a rapist killer stating that he has a ‘great future’, imagine the despondency and rage of the affected family? Imagine the frustration of the investigating police officers and the advocates in the public prosecutor’s office. Can we allow this system to carry on? Will it not cause a breakdown of law and order and internal security very soon? Indians are generally very law-abiding and have great faith in justice. But when judgments emerge that are not in consonance with the law and common sense, there is always a hidden threat of a revolt breaking out against the judiciary, which can be disastrous.
The reaction on social media ranges from poignant commiseration to aggressive opprobrium for the denial of justice to the 189 people killed in the terror attack in Mumbai. Blame is being cast even on the capability and legal acumen, due to the present secretive selection of judges. Once again, there is a refrain for an All India Judicial Service, which many feel could lead to a qualitative improvement in the judgments, as also a solution for clearing the mountainous arrears piling up.
This writer is of the considered opinion that an important amendment needs to be made to ensure that the affected family is consulted compulsorily in every criminal case, starting from the FIR, in order to ascertain the appropriateness of the charges framed. It is now very common to read about rich and spoilt brats, under the influence of liquor and drugs, driving high-end cars, and ploughing into those sleeping on pavements. To help these rich brats, milder laws are invoked, so that they escape the rigours of the law. Hence, it is essential that right from the drafting of the FIR, the affected families are given proper legal aid, and their written consent obtained on the adequacy of the charges invoked in the FIR. Thereafter, at every stage, be it bail or the verdict, the affected family’s written consent should be made mandatory regarding the adequacy of the punishment awarded. This would obviate unnecessary higher appeals as also ensure that proper justice gets delivered. In Islamic law, the family of a murder victim has the right to seek justice, including the option of retaliation (qisas) or accepting blood money (diya). However, the decision to pursue retaliation or accept diya rests with the victim’s family, not the state. Had such a provision been there in our criminal laws. There would have been no question of the families of the 189 people who were killed being shell-shocked and betrayed by the judicial system. This writer is of the opinion that families of terror victims, those subjected to horrifying rapes and killings, should be consulted and their written consent obtained on the proper sentence to be imposed to compensate their grief and horror. This approach would also be in accordance with the goals of the victims’ rights movement (which is not in vogue in India).
Reading the quality of present-day judgments, one cannot help but agree with American lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz that “Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice, and they are also the most protected”.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Human trafficking, religious conversions, indoctrination, and radicalization in India - August 7, 2025
- India must change its judicial processes - July 25, 2025
- Psychedelic mysticism and Psychoactive substances - July 13, 2025
