Verdict shocking, will appeal, says CM; oppn questions govt
expressed shock at the Bombay high court verdict quashing the conviction of all 12 accused in the 11/7 train blasts case. "The Bombay HC decision is very shocking. We will challenge it in the Supreme Court," he said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Fadnavis said, "The lower court gave a verdict, and in 2006, after the blasts, the ATS caught the accused, collected evidence and presented it before the courts. I have not read the full (HC) judgement, but I discussed it with the lawyers and informed them it must be challenged in Supreme Court. We will go to SC at the earliest," he said.
BJP's Kirit Somaiya, who has been advocating for the train blasts survivors, said the CM had assured him the state would appeal.
"We are all shocked and pained by the verdict. I have spoken to CM Fadnavis. He has assured us the govt will seek help of top legal experts and an appeal will be filed as soon as possible," said Somaiya, who had taken a group of survivors to meet additional chief secretary (CMO) I S Chahal in Mantralaya on Monday.
"The lower court had awarded death sentence. But there must have been some shortcomings in the investigation conducted in 2006.
I am convinced SC will give us justice," Somaiya added.
Revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule said, "We will be looking into the basis on which they have been acquitted and whether additional proof was required. We will look into the possibility of an appeal after consulting the CM."
Food and civil supplies minister Chhagan Bhujbal said, "We will have to carefully look into where the prosecution fell short and what was missing.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
After that, we could go to SC."
Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora said on X, "As a Mumbaikar, I cannot accept the verdict... In 2006, I was an MP from Mumbai and went and saw what happened in that terrorist attack. I appeal to the Maharashtra government that they should involve the best lawyers and appeal against the verdict as soon as possible."
Congress MP Varsha Gaikwad said on X, "Victims of the Mumbai train blasts must get justice.
The Chief Minister should urgently intervene in this matter. An appeal must be filed in the SC." She added, "I think the Maharashtra govt may not have done what we expected in terms of the collection of evidence or appointment of the public prosecutor."
Rohit Pawar from NCP (SP) said, "We will have to look at why the court gave this decision and whether the evidence fell short. Did the state govt fall short in presenting its position?"
Shiv Sena's Sanjay Nirupam said, "The order is very unfortunate and essentially says none of those arrested were responsible. The question is – then who orchestrated the blasts? Was there anything lacking in the work done by the probe agency?"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Govt. silent on reforms to address judicial misconduct
At a time when the government is seeking to remove Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi this March, the Law Minister, while speaking in Parliament, did not specify the government's stance on legislative reforms regarding the Supreme Court's in-house procedure to address judicial misconduct. Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether reforms were required in the top court's procedure, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal only described the existing rules and regulations for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and did not speak on the need for reforms. 'Article 124 (4) provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,' he said. 'For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that 'A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court,' the Minister said in a written reply in the House. The Minister described the procedure adopted by Parliament for the removal of a judge but skipped the reply to a question about steps being taken on reforms, and if there has been any consultation with experts on this. Opposition parties and civil rights groups have, in the past, raised the demand for judicial accountability. Apart from Justice Varma's case, questions on judicial integrity were raised by the Opposition when Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, last December, made veiled attacks on the Muslim community while speaking about Uniform Civil Code at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The judge had said that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'majority'. The Opposition, across party lines, had objected to the speech and had demanded his removal. In the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said that the integrity and transparency of the judiciary needed to be maintained. 'We are for the removal of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that process,' he said.
Hindustan Times
15 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What issues prompted state cabinet to defer law on black magic: Kerala HC to govt
Kochi, The Kerala High Court has sought a clarification from the state government on what were the legal and constitutional issues that prompted the cabinet to defer discussion on a proposed legislation to ban black magic, sorcery, and other inhuman practices. What issues prompted state cabinet to defer law on black magic: Kerala HC to govt A bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji sought the clarification after the state government told the court that the proposed law has only been deferred and it does not intend to step back from the subject matter which remains under active consideration. The government told the court that the state cabinet withdrew the proposed legislation from the agenda due to complex legal and constitutional issues. It also told the bench that though there is no specific statute, there are provisions like the BNS, Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, the Kerala Police Act, SC/ST Act, POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act to prosecute criminal acts committed under the guise of magical or supernatural claim. Taking note of the submissions by the government, the bench said that "a clarification is required on these aspects". "Firstly, the complex legal and constitutional issues that prompted the Council of Ministers to withdraw from the agenda should be at least briefly indicated. "Secondly, detailed information should be provided regarding prosecutions of cases arising from magical and supernatural claims, which have been dealt with under the general law as referred to above for the last five years," the court said. It said that if such offences have been tackled under the general law, then there should be a record of the same and therefore, the details of the same should be placed before the court by way of an additional affidavit. The bench also directed that since the government was claiming that the special law remains under active consideration, it should indicate in the affidavit when a decision would be taken. With these directions, the court listed the matter for further hearing on August 5. The order came on a public interest litigation filed by the Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham seeking a law similar to those enacted in Maharashtra and Karnataka to prohibit harmful rituals conducted in the name of supernatural powers. "The Kerala Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, is one of the recommended statutes. But so far, no attempt has been made on the part of the state on the matter," the organisation has claimed. The state has claimed that a draft bill titled "The Kerala Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, 2022" had been prepared based on recommendations from the Law Reforms Commission. However, after deliberations, the council of ministers decided on July 5, 2023, not to go ahead with the legislation for now, it had told the court on the last date of hearing. The PIL, first filed in 2022, was dismissed in June 2023 due to the absence of representation from the petitioner. It was later restored by the High Court. The Yuktivadi Sangham, in its plea, has stated that the Law Reforms Commission, headed by Justice K T Thomas, had submitted a comprehensive report to the State of Kerala in the year 2019, with legislative recommendations based on new social conditions. The plea was filed in 2022 in the wake of a ritual human sacrifice of two women in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala by three people, including a couple. The petition has claimed that the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra have passed laws against sorcery and black magic. It has also sought a declaration that "films on big screens and OTT platforms, and several serials and other telefilms, aired on television channels and YouTube, having content of superstitious beliefs, including sorcery and occult practices, exempting those having good intentions and having good artistic values, are illegal". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
