Here the article on the Malegaon 2008 and Mumbai 2006 blast case verdicts, structured for Mains and Prelims relevance under GS Paper 2 and GS Paper 3:
📘 GS Paper 2
Topic: Governance, Criminal Justice System, Role of Investigating Agencies
Topic: Separation of Powers, Pressure on Judiciary, Rule of Law
🔹 Case 1: 2008 Malegaon Blasts
-
Event:
-
Date: September 29, 2008
-
Location: Malegaon, Maharashtra (Muslim-majority town)
-
Casualties: 6 killed, 95 injured
-
-
Accused:
-
7 individuals including BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit (Retd.)
-
Alleged links to right-wing group Abhinav Bharat
-
-
Investigation:
-
Initial Probe: Maharashtra ATS under Hemant Karkare
-
Transferred to: National Investigation Agency (NIA)
-
Allegations of "saffron terror"
-
Former Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged pressure from NIA in 2015 to go soft on the accused
-
-
Judgement Highlights (2024):
-
All accused acquitted by NIA Special Court
-
Reasons for Acquittal:
-
Evidence was inconclusive, legally inadmissible, and unreliable
-
Witness testimonies were contradictory
-
No solid proof connecting accused to the motorcycle used
-
Procedural lapses in invoking UAPA and MCOCA
-
-
Judicial Observation:
-
“Terrorism has no religion”; justice must be based on evidence, not public perception
-
-
🔹 Case 2: 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts
-
Event:
-
Date: July 11, 2006
-
Location: Mumbai suburban trains
-
Casualties: 189 dead, 824 injured
-
One of the deadliest terror attacks in India
-
-
Accused:
-
12 individuals convicted earlier by trial court
-
-
Investigation:
-
Maharashtra ATS blamed LeT and SIMI
-
Contradictory Claim: NIA claimed Indian Mujahideen responsible
-
-
Judgement Highlights (2024):
-
All 12 accused acquitted by Bombay High Court
-
Reasons for Acquittal:
-
Delayed witness statements (recorded after 100+ days)
-
Circumstantial evidence weak, including call detail records
-
No proof of explosives, broken chain of custody
-
Allegations of coerced confessions
-
-
High Court Criticism:
-
Serious procedural flaws and credibility issues
-
Rebuked trial court for its conviction order
-
-
🔹 Common Themes and Concerns
-
Delay in justice delivery: Victims waited nearly two decades for closure
-
Accountability gaps in investigative agencies
-
Contradictions among agencies (ATS vs. NIA)
-
Misuse of investigative power and politically motivated allegations
-
Erosion of trust in criminal justice and anti-terror frameworks
-
Impact on Rule of Law and Public Faith in Judiciary
📌 Important SC Cases Referenced
-
Vijay Madanlal Chaudhury v. Union of India (2022) – interpretation of money laundering laws, applicable in similar procedural lapses
-
Vir Bhadra Singh v. ED (2017) – ECIRs not requiring FIRs for PMLA proceedings
📖 Relevant PYQs (GS Paper 2 – within 8 years)
| Year | Question |
|---|---|
| 2021 | “Institutional accountability is critical to governance.” Discuss in light of recent events related to investigative agencies. |
| 2020 | “The rule of law is essential for good governance.” Discuss with reference to criminal justice in India. |
| 2019 | “The absence of transparency and accountability in investigative processes impacts the justice delivery system.” Elaborate. |
| 2018 | Discuss the need for police reforms and independent investigation in India. |
🧠 Mains Answer Writing Framework
Q. Discuss the implications of investigative lapses in terror cases for India’s criminal justice system.
Introduction:
-
Mention Malegaon and Mumbai blast cases as examples of delayed justice and acquittals
Body:
-
Highlight common lapses: procedural delays, unreliable witnesses, political interference, contradictory agency reports
-
Mention impact on victims, communal harmony, judicial credibility
-
Discuss lack of transparency, poor coordination among agencies
Conclusion:
-
Emphasize the need for independent, accountable investigation
-
Suggest reforms: strengthening forensic practices, fast-track terror courts, cross-agency coordination, and police accountability
No comments:
Post a Comment