The Hindu: Published on 31st July 2025.
Why in News?
On July 21, 2024, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, overturning the 2015 convictions under the MCOCA.
This verdict is significant because it freed men imprisoned for nearly two decades, with serious judicial criticism of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and broader implications for anti-terror legislation misuse.
Background: What happened on July 11, 2006?
Seven coordinated blasts occurred in suburban trains during Mumbai’s evening rush hour.
Casualties:
189 people killed
824 injured
Bombs were concealed in pressure cookers and placed in first-class compartments of Western Railway trains.
Suspected motive: Retaliation for the 2002 Gujarat riots (as per ATS).
What was the 2015 MCOCA Court Verdict?
A special MCOCA court convicted 12 of 13 accused:
5 sentenced to death
7 sentenced to life imprisonment
1 acquitted (Wahid Shaikh)
Charges included conspiracy, murder, terrorism, and illegal possession of explosives.
Verdict was largely based on confessions, witness testimonies, and recovered material.
Why did the Bombay High Court overturn the verdict?
The High Court found major legal, procedural, and evidentiary flaws:
a) Coerced Confessions
Confessions were allegedly obtained through torture (electric shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation).
Confessions were identical in language, raising doubts about voluntariness.
Statutory safeguards (like access to legal counsel) were violated.
Medical records supported torture claims.
b) Unreliable Eyewitnesses
Witnesses came forward 3–4 months after the blasts, undermining credibility.
Taxi drivers and passengers’ testimony lacked corroboration.
Test Identification Parades (TIPs) were invalid: conducted by an officer whose tenure had expired.
c) Illegal Invocation of MCOCA
MCOCA was invoked without valid prior sanction by a qualified officer.
The sanctioning officer did not scrutinize documents before approval.
This invalidated the use of a law that relaxes evidentiary standards and reverses burden of proof.
d) Tampered & Mishandled Evidence
Physical evidence (RDX, detonators, maps) had no proper chain of custody.
Some forensic seals were broken, making the evidence inadmissible.
e) Suppression/Destruction of Call Data Records (CDRs)
CDRs, key to tracking alleged communications with Pakistani operatives, were destroyed.
Court considered this a deliberate act—a violation of the right to a fair trial.
What has the Supreme Court said?
July 24, 2024: Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment, but:
Allowed the acquitted men to remain free.
Issued notices to all acquitted persons.
Stay was granted because the ruling could impact other ongoing MCOCA trials.
Final hearing on the State’s appeal is still pending.
Legal & Political Implications
Legal:
Raises alarms over use of confessions, torture, and procedural lapses in terrorism cases.
Reasserts the importance of due process, even in grave cases like terrorism.
Questions the misuse of MCOCA—a law known for its sweeping powers and limited safeguards.
Political:
State police credibility is damaged.
Reflects poorly on previous political regimes (Congress-led Maharashtra govt).
The release of alleged terrorists may become a polarizing issue in upcoming elections.
Human Rights and Civil Liberties:
Men spent 18–19 years in prison, with only one acquitted earlier in 2015.
Raises serious concerns about custodial torture, false charges, and wrongful imprisonment.
Draws attention to the need for prison reforms, independent probes, and accountability mechanisms.
Broader Questions Raised:
Can anti-terror laws be used responsibly without abuse of power?
Should confessions to police be admissible at all?
How do we balance national security with individual rights and due process?
Conclusion:
- The Bombay High Court’s verdict in the 2006 blasts case is a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
- While it emphasizes that real justice demands real perpetrators, it also underlines that justice cannot be served through shortcuts or scapegoats.
- The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will be crucial in shaping the future of anti-terror trials in India.
