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
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
My case is an example of misuse of ED, says Shivakumar
Ramanagara: Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar has said that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was being misused for political purposes, and cited his own case as an example of such "abuse". Speaking to reporters in Kodihalli, Kanakapura on Monday, he said the Supreme Court's observations in the MUDA case, where it dismissed the ED's appeal, reflected a pattern of selective targeting. "My case itself is proof of the ED being misused politically. They filed a case against me, sent me to Tihar Jail, and eventually the case was dropped," he said. The Deputy CM urged the ED to introspect and examine whether it is succumbing to political pressure. Referring to the MUDA case, he said, "Once a 'B' report was submitted, there was no question of further appeal. That is probably why the Supreme Court made such observations." Shivakumar questioned why ED cases were being filed only against Congress leaders. "Why are there no ED cases against BJP leaders? Why are only Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra and other Congress leaders targeted? Has everyone who joined the BJP suddenly become pure? Isn't this the BJP's washing machine?" he asked. Shivakumar's remarks follow the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the ED in the MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) land allotment case involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi B M and Congress MLA Byrathi Suresh.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Cong taunts BJP's BC leaders over ‘Upper Caste' state chief
Hyderabad: The Congress party on Tuesday challenged Backward Classes (BC) leaders within the BJP to respond to comments made by their newly appointed state president, N Ramchander Rao. Rao had reportedly questioned the Telangana state government's sincerity regarding a proposed 42 per cent reservation for BCs, citing an 'unscientific approach.' Speaking to media at Gandhi Bhavan, Congress official spokesperson B Lingam Yadav asserted that if BJP MPs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, D Aravind, and Eatala Rajender failed to counter the remarks from their new state president, it would convey a misleading message that the BJP is a party opposed to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and BCs. The Congress leader affirmed that the Revanth government's objective is to implement reservations mirroring the model in Tamil Nadu, which has successfully navigated the constraints of reservation caps. 'The BC leaders in BJP should respond,' Yadav pressed. 'Bandi Sanjay, Aravind, Etela Rajender should respond to Ramchandra's comments on BC reservations. If 42 per cent reservation is not given to BCs, BCs would be further marginalised.' He vowed, 'We will achieve 42 per cent reservation by building pressure on Centre and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.' Yadav further contended that those opposing the reservation now are the same leaders who championed 'Kamandal politics' as a counter to the 'Mandal Commission' recommendations in the past.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
IPS officer ordered to publish apology in newspapers, social media as SC finalises divorce
Settling a deeply contested marital dispute, the Supreme Court Tuesday granted divorce to a couple and directed that the wife, who is an IPS officer, to issue an 'an unconditional apology to the husband and his family' and have it published it newspapers and on social media as part of the settlement. The couple, an IPS officer and Delhi-based businessman, had married in 2015 and separated in 2018. The woman became an IPS officer in 2022, three years after she separated from her husband and moved to her hometown in Uttar Pradesh. According to the terms of the court-mandated settlement, the woman did not seek alimony or maintenance and instead offered to transfer property owned by her parents to her estranged husband. These properties — three pieces of land in Aligarh — will be transferred by the officer's mother who owns them through a gift deed. 'As a result of the cases filed by the wife, the husband remained in jail for a period of 109 days and his father for 103 days and the entire family suffered physical and mental trauma and harassment. What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner,' the top court said, directing the IPS officer, and her parents to tender an unconditional apology to the husband and his family members which shall be published in the national edition of the renowned one English and one Hindi newspaper. 'Such apology shall also be published and circulated on all social media platforms,' the SC said in its order. The apex court also granted primary custody of the child to the mother and visitation rights to the father. The SC further granted police protection to the husband and his family, cautioning the IPS officer to 'never use her position and power as an IPS officer or any other position that she may hold in future,' to cause 'any bodily or mental injury to the husband and his family, in any manner whatsoever.' A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih also added that 'the apology is made to bring about amicable closure to the protracted legal battle and associated emotional and mental stress. It is without prejudice to/for either party. It shall not ever be used against (her),' the apex court said. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the SC power to do complete justice, the court directly grants divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The top court was hearing two transfer petitions filed by the couple. While the wife had filed cases in UP, the husband had filed cases in Delhi's Rohini court. Goel had sought divorce and did not seek either alimony or maintenance. The husband, in turn, had sought custody of their eight-year-old daughter. The marital dispute soon turned into a litany of cases against each other. While the wife alleged domestic violence, rape, and made income tax complaints, the husband alleged defamation and even challenged the IPS candidature of the wife.
