"Mumbai Blasts Could've Been Averted If...": Ujjwal Nikam On Sanjay Dutt
The government's key lawyer Ujjwal Nikam, who is now stepping into politics with a seat in Rajya Sabha after a recommendation from the President of India Droupadi Murmu, took a relook at his career in law today in an exclusive interview with NDTV.
Going over the milestones, he revealed one "secret" that he said he had had never told the media - his whispered conversation with Sanjay Dutt when the actor was convicted under the Arms Act during the hearing of the 1993 bomb blasts case in Mumbai in which 257 people had died.
Mr Dutt's conversation with the Public Prosecutor was noted and much commented on at the time. BUt it was not known what was said.
Sanjay Dutt, Mr Nikam said today, had lost control once the sentence was announced.
"I saw his body language change. I felt that he was in shock. He could not tolerate the verdict and he looked shaken," Mr Nikam told NDTV. "He was in the witness box and I was nearby and I spoke to him. You'd remember he became silent and then he left," he added.
Asked what it was that he told the actor, Mr Nikam said he was revealing the "secret" for the first time.
"I told Sanjay, 'Sanjay don't do this. The media is watching you. You are an actor. If you appear scared by the sentence, people would consider you guilty. You have a chance to appeal'. He said 'Yes sir, yes sir'.
Sanjay Dutt, back then, was innocent and had kept the weapon because he was attracted to guns, Mr Nikam said.
"Yes he did commit an offence in the eyes of the law. But he is straight forward guy. And I considered him innocent. I have only one thing to say. The blast took place on March 12, days before that a van came his (Sanjay Dutt's) house. It was full of weapons-- hand grenades, AK 47s. Abu Salem (henchman of gangster Dawood Ibrahim) had brought it. Sanjay picked some hand grenades and guns. Then he returned it all and kept just one AK 47. Had he informed the police at the time, the police would have investigated and the Mumbai lasts would never have happened," Mr Nikam said.
He said he had told Mr Dutt's lawyer about this as well -- the AK 47 was never fired and its possession - that of banned weapon -- was "one thing". But his not informing the police was what had led to the blasts that had killed so many people.
The court had acquitted Mr Dutt from the acuusation of being a terrorist under the TADA law but had convicted him under the Arms Act.
Later, the Supreme Court reduced his six-year sentence to five years. Mr Dutt had completed this sentence in Pune's Yerwada jail.
Mr Nikam was also the prosecutor for the 26/11 Mumbai attack for which Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab was hanged.
Asked about his statement that Ajmal Kasab was having biriyani in jail, he said the terrorist had indeed demanded biriyani. But that comment was taken up by political leaders and politicised.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
37 minutes ago
- Business Standard
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Centre lists eight new bills for the monsoon session of Parliament
For the monsoon session of Parliament, which begins on 21 July, the government has listed eight new bills to be introduced, including the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, and the Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill. The session is also set to witness the Opposition INDIA bloc parties demanding that the government brief Parliament on Operation Sindoor, India's foreign relations—especially with China, the proposed India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement, and US President Donald Trump's repeated claims that he used trade as a bargaining chip to persuade India and Pakistan to end their military conflict. On Tuesday, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, who is also the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, met Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. 'The Opposition wants a productive Rajya Sabha session from 21 July. For that to happen, several strategic, political, foreign policy, and socio-economic issues that are of great public concern need to be debated and discussed,' Kharge said in a post on X after the meeting. The government is also set to introduce the Geoheritage Sites and Geo-relics (Preservation and Maintenance) Bill, the National Sports Governance Bill, and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill. According to the government's list of business, the Mines and Minerals Bill will seek to provide for the viable recovery of associated critical minerals, inclusion of contiguous areas in a lease for optimal and scientific mining of deep-seated minerals, and widen the scope of the National Mineral Exploration Trust. The Jan Vishwas Bill seeks to foster ease of doing business and promote ease of living. The Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill seeks to include IIM Guwahati in the Schedule of the Act. The Geoheritage Sites and Geo-relics (Preservation and Maintenance) Bill seeks to provide for the declaration, preservation, protection, and maintenance of geoheritage sites and geo-relics of national importance for geological studies. The National Sports Governance Bill aims to establish institutional capacity and standards for the governance of sports federations, as well as measures for the resolution of sports grievances and disputes. In addition to these bills, Parliament will also consider some of the pending bills, including the Income Tax Bill, which was referred to a Select Committee during the Budget session for further scrutiny. The government will also seek Parliament's approval for having extended President's Rule in Manipur. Some of the pending bills listed by the government for passage include the Bills of Lading Bill, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill, the Coastal Shipping Bill, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and the Indian Ports Bill.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC Summons Samay Raina, Other Comedians Over Alleged Remarks On Disabilities
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed stand-up comedians Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar to appear personally before the court on the next date of hearing over their alleged insensitive remarks against persons with disabilities. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed comedian Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, to appear virtually during the next hearing. The apex court recorded the presence of Raina, Goyal, Tanwar, Ghai, and Thakkar and directed them to file their replies to the petition within two weeks. They all appeared before the apex court today in pursuant to court's earlier order. The bench made it clear that no extension will be granted beyond this period and warned that any absence on the next date of hearing will be viewed seriously. The apex court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to prepare social media guidelines while balancing the freedom of speech and expression and the rights and duties of others. Venkataramani sought time to assist the court on the issue and said the enforceability of guidelines would require detailed consideration. "What we are doing is for posterity. You have to ensure that not a single word is misused by anyone. You have to ensure balance. We have to protect citizens' rights. A framework must be there that the dignity of anyone is not violated," the bench said. #WATCH | Delhi | Comedian Samay Raina arrives in the Supreme Court, to appear before the court in the matter related to allegedly mocking persons with disabilities. — ANI (@ANI) July 15, 2025 The top court was hearing a petition filed by M/s Cure SMA Foundation seeking a prohibition on the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on the digital media against persons with disability. It also sought the formulation of guidelines to safeguard the rights and dignity of persons with disability in the context of the broadcasting of online content. On May 5, the bench had summoned the comedians to appear before it or face coercive action after the plea alleged that they ridiculed persons suffering from SMA, a rare disorder, and also those suffering from other disabilities on their show. The top court had also issued notice to the Union of India through the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, Electronics and Information Technology, Social Justice and Empowerment, and News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation. The NGO brought to the notice of the court the broadcast of certain online content, media and programmes that are derogatory, offensive, denigrating, ableist or belittling to persons with disability, or their diseases, or their treatment options. The petitioner was also aggrieved by the lack of any explicit statutory guidelines to sufficiently regulate the broadcast of such online content, which violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities, while transgressing the qualified right of free speech and expression. It asked the court to put a positive obligation on both the government and private actors to adopt a unique standard of representation of persons with disability in the online domain. The NGO accused Raina of insensitive remarks on persons with such conditions, high-costing drugs and treatment options for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and also alleged to have ridiculed a person with disability. It flagged videos where he made comments on persons with disabilities. The petition said these comedians are public figures and enjoy a following of millions of viewers/users on various social media intermediaries. "The petitioner is concerned by certain live and pre-recorded event videos of these individuals, due to their offensive, denigrating and dehumanising representation of persons with disabilities," the petition said. "These videos shed light on the widespread irresponsible, insensitive and violate dissemination of such online content that contravenes the rightsof the persons with disability under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, propels offensive stereotypes and misguided portrayals against them, and detrimentally impacts their societal participation, and fosters insensitivity and inhumanity against them, and as such falls within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)," said the petition.
