Asaduddin Owaisi on 7/11 acquittals: Will Govt punish ATS for jailing innocents for 18 years? – ‘prime life is gone'
The Bombay High Court's judgement came nearly a decade after a special court awarded the convicts capital punishment and life sentences.
'12 Muslim men were in Jail for 18 years for a crime they didn't commit. Their prime life is gone. 180 families who lost their loved ones, several injured no closure for them. Will the government take action against officers of Maharashtra ATS who investigated this case ?' the Hyderabad MP asked in a post on X.
A bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam Chandak observed that 'the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts,' legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
The court found the statements of nearly all prosecution witnesses unreliable. The court reportedly said there was no reason for taxi drivers or people inside to remember the accused after almost 100 days of the blast.
'Innocent people are sent to jail, and then, years later, when they are released from jail, there is no possibility for reconstruction of their lives. For last 17 years, these accused are in jail. They haven't stepped out even for a day. The majority of their prime life is gone. In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there,' Owaisi said in the post.
On the evening of July 11, 2006, bomb blasts took place at seven different places in the Mumbai local trains within just 11 minutes. In the incident, 189 people lost their lives in blasts, while more than 827 passengers were injured.
The bombs were placed in first-class compartments of trains from Churchgate. They exploded near the stations of Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar and Borivali. A trial court in 2015 convicted 12 people in the blasts case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
India uses BRICS to push reforms—not to challenge the US
These nations are now challenging the hegemony of the West. Calls for de-dollarisation—reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance— are becoming prominent, posing a threat to America's financial and geopolitical dominance. It gives China and Russia (and India too) a louder voice on the world stage. It fuels global economic realignment away from the dollar and Western institutions, pointing to a multipolar world order—something that US President Donald Trump doesn't support. Although forming groups of countries to promote cooperation is common globally, BRICS is more than a conventional grouping. It is a group of countries challenging the clout of the developed powers, particularly the US and European nations. In 2010, the first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—constituted 18 per cent of the global GDP. Their collective share has risen to 26.5 percent in 2025. The latest edition of the BRICS Summit was significant because all 10 member countries participated. It included Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, which attended as member states for the first time at the 2024 summit in Russia, and Indonesia, which joined in early 2025 as the first Southeast Asian country in the bloc. With its expansion, the group is now known as BRICS Plus—a term first used at the 2024 summit. Trump's worries with BRICS The recent expansion of BRICS, with five new members joining, has increased the worries of the West, particularly the US. And without mincing words, Trump has started expressing his unhappiness over the developments happening in BRICS. Here are the key reasons why Trump opposes BRICS: The primary reason is that both the original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and new entrants like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia are openly discussing reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance. Trump's long-standing 'America First' stance makes any move away from the dollar a direct challenge to U.S. economic influence and its ability to enforce sanctions. The second point that irks Trump is BRICS' geopolitical opposition to the West. BRICS increasingly positions itself as a counterweight to Western institutions like the G7, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. The deepening ties between China and Russia within BRICS are seen as part of a broader anti-Western alignment. Third, Trump has consistently taken a hardline stance on China, through trade wars, tariffs, tech and investment restrictions, etc. BRICS giving China a leadership platform to challenge the US on the global stage agitates him. He views BRICS as a vehicle for China's global expansion under the guise of multipolarity. Fourth, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Iran gives BRICS influence over global energy markets. There is growing potential for oil trade to be conducted in non-dollar currencies (e.g., yuan or BRICS currency), which would weaken the petrodollar system—a critical pillar of US global economic power. Fifth, Trump perceives BRICS expansion as a sign that the 'Global South' is drifting away from Western influence, forming its own independent bloc. This runs contrary to Trump's vision of negotiating 'from strength,' where US dominance is unquestioned. Sixth, Trump views global influence in zero-sum terms. Any rise of a non-Western grouping that excludes the US is seen as a personal and national affront. BRICS summits that propose alternative visions for world order without US involvement are perceived as a threat to 'American prestige'—something Trump values highly. He has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries siding with the BRICS. He has already announced the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on Brazil. Also read: BRICS nations resist 'anti-American' label after Trump tariff threat India's pragmatic approach Although India is a member of BRICS, its approach is more nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic compared to other members. India's stance is shaped by its national interests, strategic autonomy, and growing global ambitions. While it has been trying to promote its economic interests by promoting international trade and settlements in rupee—thereby reducing dependence on dollar—India is not anti-dollar. It supports a broader effort to diversify the global financial system, reduce dependency on a single currency, and promote a multipolar world order. India has initiated bilateral trade in rupees with countries such as Russia, the UAE, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius to reduce its forex outflows. So far, more than 20 countries have opened Vostro accounts to facilitate trade settlement in domestic currencies. India backs BRICS to create alternative payment mechanisms, like using local currencies or discussions around a potential BRICS currency, but remains cautious about their practicality. India understands the dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance and has not called for its outright replacement (or de-dollarisation). Instead, it favors the coexistence of multiple reserve currencies (like the euro, the yuan, and the rupee). India does not see BRICS as an anti-US bloc. It views the grouping as a platform for reforming global institutions, not for confrontation. India supports a world with multiple power centres, where the voices of emerging economies are better represented. India has been pleading for long to bring reforms in institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, which it believes are West-dominated and don't reflect current global realities. In this context, under India's G20 presidency, an expert group was formed to prepare a report on reforms for global financial institutions. This group was co-convened by economists Larry Summers and NK Singh. Their report focused on strengthening Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Guided by its own objectives, India uses BRICS to promote cooperation in technology, finance, infrastructure, and sustainable development. If the US is irked by Chinese dominance in BRICS, India too remains wary of China's influence in the bloc and rejects any behaviour that undermines its sovereignty or aligns too closely with Chinese interests. At the global level, India's balanced approach is to serve its national objectives and achieve its goals of protecting its national sovereignty. By promoting international settlements in Indian currency, reducing dependence on dollars, it's also trying to stop the de-weaponisation of dollars. India is promoting self-reliance through 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat', and discourages efforts of others (both the West and China) to weaponise global value chains. By promoting digital rupee payments, India is also trying to de-weaponise payment systems. These efforts protect our own national interest by not allowing others to dominate India. In the past, India has been able to demonstrate its clout by purchasing oil from Russia and Iran, promoting digital payments and pushing for reforms in global institutions at international fora. It's interesting that the US has not objected to these moves—perhaps looking at India as a force to balance the dominance of other countries, including China. Ashwani Mahajan is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC seeks NIA's response on Engineer Rashid's plea seeking waiver of travel cost for attending Parliament
The Delhi High Court Friday sought the National Investigation Agency (NIA)'s response on the plea filed by Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, also known as Engineer Rashid, challenging the costs imposed by a trial court as part of his custody parole conditions to attend Parliament. Rashid, who is an Independent Lok Sabha MP, also sought interim bail. On Tuesday, a Delhi court granted custody parole to Rashid from July 24 to August 4 to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament, but rejected his interim bail plea. Rashid urged the trial court to either grant interim bail or permission to attend Parliament in custody, without payment of travel costs, as he was seeking to attend the session as part of his public duty and not for personal work. Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh, however, imposed travel costs on him. Challenging the trial court's order, Senior Advocate N Hariharan told a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur Friday that despite the custody parole, Rashid was losing each day of the relief as he had not been able to attend the session due to the huge costs. Hariharan also submitted that Rashid has been 'saddled' with a cost of Rs 17 lakh to 'represent the public at large.' The bench posted the matter for further consideration on July 29, and issued notice to NIA. On the same day, the high court is also due to consider a plea by Rashid seeking regular bail after a trial court rejected the request on March 21. In March, while allowing Rashid to attend Parliament during the Budget session, the Delhi High Court imposed the condition that the lawmaker would bear the expense for his travel to Parliament while in the court's custody, accompanied by the police, and other arrangements. The jail authorities had estimated a daily cost of approximately Rs 1.45 lakh for travel and related arrangements, totalling Rs 8.74 lakh for Rashid to attend six days of Parliament. At the time, he had challenged the condition that required him to bear the costs before the HC. Subsequently, he had submitted that he is ready to deposit 50 per cent of the cost of over Rs 8.74 lakh for the police escort arrangement to attend Parliament. Recording Rashid's submission, the Delhi HC had directed that he would be allowed to attend Parliament after depositing the amount. Lodged in Delhi's Tihar Jail since 2019 in a case of alleged terror funding, he was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to NIA, he used various public platforms to 'propagate the ideology of separatism and secessionism', was closely associated with various terrorist organisations, and wanted to 'legitimise' the United Jihad Council, a platform of anti-India militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. On May 30, 2017, NIA registered a case under Indian Penal Code Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed and other 'secessionist and separatist' leaders, including Rashid. NIA claimed they 'received and collected' funds through hawala channels in 'connivance with active militants of…terrorist organizations Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Lashkar-e-Toiba' to fund 'terrorist activities' in Jammu and Kashmir.
