
Mumbai train blasts acquittal: Justice must be tangible, not merely aspirational
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Mumbai train blasts acquittal: Justice must be tangible, not merely aspirational
The recent acquittal of the accused in the devastating 2006 Mumbai train blasts is a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle against terrorism in India. A series of synchronised bomb explosions on suburban trains resulted in the loss of over 180 lives and left many more injured. While 12 accused were convicted in September 2015, after a further delay of nearly a decade, on July 21, the Mumbai High Court acquitted all the accused on grounds of insufficient evidence. The prosecution retains the option to challenge the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. The acquittal, undoubtedly, is a setback for the victims and their families, who have been yearning for justice. It is also a rude wake-up call for all the agencies involved in the prosecution and investigation of this ghastly tragedy. It highlights the need for a rigorous review of the initial investigation and trial processes. It brings to the forefront the question of whether the resources currently allocated to combating terrorism are sufficient or if we need a paradigm shift in how these cases are approached and prosecuted.
Almost two decades ago, on July 11, 2006, Mumbai endured a tragedy that would leave an indelible mark on its history. A series of synchronised bomb explosions on suburban trains resulted in the loss of over 180 lives and left many more injured. The aftermath was marked not just by grief, but also by an outpouring of anger and a fervent demand for justice. The initial investigation pointed towards various extremist groups, and within weeks, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) took the reins of the inquiry.
Advertisement
In 2007, a charge sheet was filed, leading to a trial that lasted eight long years. During this time, however, the prosecution faced its fair share of hurdles, including issues related to the evidence, the reliability of eye-witnesses, and the very integrity of the investigative process. While 12 accused were convicted in September 2015, after a further delay of nearly a decade, on July 21, the Mumbai High Court acquitted all the accused on grounds of insufficient evidence, raising questions about the efficacy of the criminal justice system.
The acquittal, undoubtedly, is a setback for the victims and their families, who have been yearning for justice. It is also a rude wake-up call for all the agencies involved in the prosecution and investigation of this ghastly tragedy. However, this does not mark the end of the road in this ongoing legal saga. The prosecution retains the option to challenge the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. This route could potentially involve re-evaluating the evidence and engaging the apex court in deliberating on the principles of justice and civil rights.
That said, even the prospect of a Supreme Court appeal does not guarantee a different outcome. It highlights the need for a rigorous review of the initial investigation and trial processes. Notably, it brings to the forefront the question of whether the resources currently allocated to combating terrorism are sufficient or if we need a paradigm shift in how these cases are approached and prosecuted. There are several lessons that can be drawn from this case.
Advertisement
First and foremost, we need to take a hard look at our protocols of evidence collection and preservation. A recurring flaw in the prosecution of terror cases in India is the manner in which evidence is gathered, preserved, and presented in court. Instances of inadequate forensic techniques, poorly documented eyewitness accounts, and lack of corroborative evidence plagued the 2006 case. Establishing standardised guidelines for evidence collection is non-negotiable; we must equip law enforcement agencies with the tools and technology necessary for effective data gathering.
Second, our systems of witness protection and management are far from adequate: Witness intimidation remains a significant barrier to securing convictions. In many cases, potential witnesses shy away from testifying due to fear. Implementing structured witness protection programmes could encourage testimony and minimise the risks faced by those willing to stand up against terror.
Third, we must appreciate the need for seamless inter-agency coordination at all levels. Given the inter-state and international ramifications of most terror investigations, they demand a very high quality of collaboration and cohesion between our intelligence agencies, investigating agencies and prosecution wing at the state and central level. However, as we have seen in too many cases, petty politics, and senseless one-upmanship between agencies and individuals often shape the course and outcome of high-profile terror investigations. A cohesive framework for sharing intelligence and operational strategies is required. When various arms of law enforcement agencies work together seamlessly, the chances of missed connections and overlooked evidence diminish significantly.
Fourth, the role of the judiciary in such sensitive cases should also be understood and analysed. Our higher judiciary must be equipped to recognise the complexities involved in terror prosecutions. This calls for training of judges to better handle cases with national security implications that are investigated and tried under provisions of anti-terror legislation. There is a tricky balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring timely justice for terror victims. Inordinate delays in the trial and appeals process certainly have a huge role to play in such acquittals.
Regrettably, for a section of our civil society, such acquittals also reinforce the stereotype of communal bias of our criminal justice system. One would suggest that this view is more about the ideological bias of its proponents and a pointed refusal for a more nuanced appraisal of our internal security challenges. We must refrain from such snap judgements. An astute understanding of community dynamics can facilitate more effective counter-terrorism strategies. Collaborating with community leaders can establish trust between law enforcement agencies and the populace, acting as a deterrent against radicalisation.
In our collective chest-beating at such verdicts, it is easy to forget the real pain of the families of terror victims and the trauma of the survivors of terror attacks. We need more comprehensive, long-term rehabilitation strategies for them. Giving financial compensation is simply not enough. Other types of interventions are also required. On the other side, we need to have preventive mechanisms such as community-based initiatives for at-risk youth that can play a major part in undermining terrorist recruiting efforts. Societal cohesion should be championed, rather than promoting fear and division that can also feed into a cycle of violence.
The acquittal of the accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts certainly represents a setback in India’s struggle against terrorism. While it serves as a sobering reminder of the gaps in our system, it also presents us with an opportunity to reevaluate our approaches to investigation and prosecution. The justice for victims of terror cannot merely be an aspiration but must become a tangible outcome. By examining our past failures and implementing concerted reforms, we can honour the memories of those lost and work towards a more just future.
In the face of these challenges, we must remain resolute in acknowledging not just the complexities of terrorism but also our collective responsibility towards ensuring that justice is both served and seen to be served. The fight against terror continues, and it must be met with unwavering courage, professional excellence, and a sense of common purpose from every element of our justice system.
The author is a serving IPS officer. Views are personal