Supreme Court agrees to hear Maha govt's plea against acquittal in 2006 Mumbai train blasts case
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai agreed to urgently list the matter for hearing on Thursday, after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned it.
Seeking an urgent hearing on the state government's special leave petition (SLP), SG Mehta said that it was a 'serious matter' requiring the top court's consideration on 'some important issues'.
In a major ruling delivered on Monday, the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 accused, of whom five were on death sentence and seven others on life imprisonment, in the July 11, 2006, Mumbai blast case.
Directing their immediate release from jail, the acquittal order passed by a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and S. Chandak came as a major blow to the investigation agencies.
The Justice Kilor-led Bench castigated the shoddy probe prosecution, opining that the prosecution failed to even establish the type of bombs used in the crime.
The 12 accused -- incarcerated for 19 years -- succeeded in establishing before the Bombay High Court the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements.
As a result, it held the statements inadmissible, saying, "On all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed."
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis termed the Bombay High Court verdict as "shocking", saying that the Maharashtra government will move the Supreme Court against it.
On July 11, 2006, seven bomb serial blasts in packed Mumbai local trains brought the maximum city to its knees within 11 minutes.
The terror attack left 189 dead and over 800 injured.
Earlier in 2015, a special court convicted 12 individuals in the case, sentencing five -- Faisal Shaikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan -- to death, while the remaining seven were given life imprisonment.
The prosecution had argued that the attack was planned by Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, and carried out by operatives of Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba with help from the Students' Islamic Movement of India, a banned Indian group.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
Hindustan Times
35 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Sports minister Mandaviya to meet Usha, EC members to resolve IOA impasse
New Delhi: Union sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya will meet the Indian Olympic Association president PT Usha and executive committee members to discuss ways to end the long-standing governance crisis in the apex sports body, it has been learnt. Delhi CM Rekha Gupta, sports minister Mansukh Mandviya and IOA President PT Usha. (PTI) Usha and the EC members have been at loggerheads and that has severely impacted IOA's functioning. The EC has not ratified the appointment of Usha-backed CEO Raghuram Iyer. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) raised the governance issue with the Indian delegation that went to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne recently to discuss India's bid for the 2036 Olympics. Due to the governance issues, IOC has suspended its Olympic Solidarity grants to IOA. In the last few days, Mandaviya has made attempts to bring Usha and EC members to the negotiating table. He has held informal meetings with the EC members. It has been learnt that Usha too has reached out to a few EC members in her bid to break the ice. As reported by HT, the IOA truce started with Usha including treasurer Sahdev Yadav and EC member Bhupender Bajwa in a panel to set a roadmap for the delayed Boxing Federation of India (BFI) elections. Iyer, too, has spoken to some EC members. An official said his appointment is likely to be ratified now with certain renegotiations. 'A middle way is being worked out to break the deadlock,' the member said.
News18
38 minutes ago
- News18
BCCI Under RTI: Long-Stalled Sports Bill To Be Tabled Today, Likely To Clear Parliament
Last Updated: Despite not receiving government funding, the BCCI, like other national sports bodies, will have to comply with regulations set out by the sports ministry once the bill is enacted Union sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya is set to introduce the highly anticipated National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The legislation, focused on athlete welfare and systemic reform, represents a significant step towards transparency and accountability in Indian sports governance. A key provision of the bill is to bring all national sports bodies, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This long-debated and previously resisted move is expected to finally become law, ending years of delay and political pushback. A previous attempt during the UPA era by then sports minister Ajay Maken failed due to opposition within his own party. Despite not receiving government funding, the BCCI, like other national sports federations, will be required to comply with the regulations set out by the sports ministry once the bill is enacted. This is particularly significant as the Indian cricket team prepares to compete at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, which will place the BCCI within the framework of a national sports federation. 'It wasn't easy to bring the BCCI on board, but extensive dialogue was held between lawmakers and the BCCI top brass to ensure their cooperation," a source involved in the legislative process told CNN-News18. 'The government's intent is clear: to instill accountability and transparency across all sports federations in the country." Once enacted, the bill will mandate all recognised sports bodies to comply with the RTI Act, opening up access to decision-making processes, financial records, and governance structures to the public. The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, aims to overhaul the Indian sports ecosystem through a series of structural reforms, including legal clarity, gender equality, athlete empowerment, and enhanced public oversight. More than just a legal framework, the bill signals the dawn of a new era where athletes are not just competitors but active stakeholders in India's sporting future. India's sports sector has long been plagued by controversies such as mismanagement, opaque elections in sports federations, and poor athlete representation. With over 350 court cases pending across federations, the judiciary has consistently urged the government to legislate a comprehensive governance structure. Efforts to introduce such a bill date back to 2011, but progress was repeatedly blocked by legal challenges, shifting political priorities, and unresolved court interventions. The Delhi High Court's endorsement of the 2011 Sports Code and pending litigations around the 2017 draft further stalled momentum. Officials believe that beyond governance reform, the bill will also contribute to employment generation, better protection for athletes—especially women and minors—and a more ethical, competitive, and globally aligned sporting culture in India. First Published: July 23, 2025, 01:42 IST Latest News Bangladesh Air Force's F-7 BGI that crashed was a Chinese copy of the MiG-21 Breaking News Sports BCCI Under RTI: Long-Stalled Sports Bill To Be Tabled Today, Likely To Clear Parliament Cricket Harmanpreet's Century, Gaud's 6-Fer Help IND Beat ENG, Clinch ODI Series 2-1 Hollywood Benny Blanco Posts Selena Gomez's Sleeping Pics On Her Birthday: 'Never Waking U Up' news DOJ Seeks Meeting With Epstein's Ex Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump Calls It An "Appropriate" Move latest news
