logo
Muddied investigations deny justice to not just the accused but also the victims

Muddied investigations deny justice to not just the accused but also the victims

Hindustan Times6 days ago
Justice JR Midha (retd) of the Delhi High Court once profoundly stated, 'In a court of 'justice' both parties know the truth; it is the judge who is on trial.' For anyone familiar with the quality of evidence presented in the 2006 7/11 Mumbai serial train blast case, the Bombay High Court's decision on Monday to acquit 11 men (Kamal Ansari passed away while the proceedings were pending)—five of whom had been sentenced to death by a trial court in 2015—was simply a discharge of its duty. Muddied investigations deny justice to not just the accused but also the victims
This article won't delve into the unspeakable horrors of the third-degree torture these men endured in prison and later testified to in court, nor the agonizing wait for judgment that stretched from days into months, years, and even decades, or the abject poverty resulting from their incarceration, or the deaths of spouses and parents during their 19-year-long imprisonment. Instead, this article aims to raise critical questions about a case shrouded in controversy from its inception, specifically regarding the accountability of investigating agencies that relied on unreliable evidence to secure convictions and assuage 'society's collective conscience'. In this particular case, such evidence sealed the fate of 13 men, some of whom were merely students at the time of their arrest in 2006.
The 7/11 train blasts trial was riddled with allegations of forced confessions and improbable eyewitness accounts right from the beginning. Eleven of the 13 accused in the case testified under oath to prove their innocence, providing vivid details of third-degree police torture, particularly before their alleged confessions. Forced confessions are inadmissible as evidence under law. Medical reports from the time largely substantiated their testimonies and were accepted by the Bombay High Court to discard the confessions. As for eyewitness accounts, Ehtesham Siddique, accused of planting one of the bombs, filed hundreds of Right to Information (RTI) applications to demonstrate the improbability of statements made by eyewitnesses. For instance, an eyewitness claimed to have seen a man with a 'heavy bag' at Churchgate station on the day of the bombings and identified Siddiqui as that man. However, Siddique cited RTI replies to show that the eyewitness may have been lying about his whereabouts at the time of the incident. The witness claimed he was visiting someone at the ENT hospital near Fort who either didn't work there or hadn't reported to work at all. Since the ATS was exempt from providing information under the RTI Act, Siddique and the other accused in the case sought information from several other government forums and hospitals to counter the prosecution's theory.
At a conspiracy level, the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) alleged that the blasts were orchestrated at the behest of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), a terrorist group based in Pakistan. ATS further claimed that one Indian and one Pakistani planted the seven bombs that detonated in first-class men's compartments of Mumbai local trains on July 11, 2006, resulting in 188 deaths and 829 injuries. However, not a single Pakistani or LeT member was prosecuted over time, immediately casting doubt on the ATS's initial allegations. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish a credible link between the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), to which many of the accused belonged, and the LeT. In fact, in 2008, Sadiq Israr Sheikh, a former SIMI member who later joined the terror outfit, the Indian Mujahideen (IM), claimed responsibility for the train blasts. Sheikh, arrested in a separate 2009 Indian Mujahideen case provided a detailed account to the Mumbai Crime Branch of how the IM executed the train blasts, but his claims were not substantially investigated by an independent agency, perhaps because it could have exposed critical loopholes in the ATS's investigation. Unsurprisingly though, during the 7/11 trial when Sheikh was called by the defence, he denied any involvement. His confession to the crime branch, however, did muddy the waters.
Echoing the questionable investigative patterns of the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts probe was the 2006 Malegaon blasts probe. Two months after the train attacks in Mumbai, four bombs ripped through Malegaon city on Shab-e-Baraat, a holy day for the city's Muslim-majority population. The ATS swiftly arrested nine Muslim men, operating under the theory that they would target their community near a mosque. This investigation mirrored the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts probe, where 'confessions' were extracted in written Hindi from Urdu speakers and evidence, like RDX traces found months after the blasts, was presented. Two of the 7/11 accused, Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh and Asif Khan were also implicated in the Malegaon blasts, with the ATS alleging their involvement in procuring explosives.
However, after the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Hindu extremist Swami Aseemanand in 2007 claimed responsibility for the blasts and the ATS's investigation in Malegaon blasts of 2006 subsequently fell apart under scrutiny. It turned out that Shabbir Masiullah, said by the ATS to have been a key conspirator in Malegaon blasts was already in police custody when he was alleged to have helped Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh and Asif Khan procure explosives. Nearly 10 years after these revelations, in April 2016, a special court discharged Mohammed Ali and Asif Khan in the Malegaon blasts case along with the other accused, castigating the ATS's 'unbelievable' theory.
These glaring inconsistencies and the human cost of wrongful arrests make one thing clear: there needs to be a complete overhaul of how investigating agencies perceive and investigate cases related to terrorism and how courts fix accountability. Agencies should refrain from making overly ambitious claims at the outset when their investigation is not yet scientific. Doing so is an affront to every victim of terror—living, injured or dead.
Sharmeen Hakim is a journalist and the author of Six Minutes of Terror: The Untold Story of the 7/11 Train Blasts
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SP MP demands rollback of school merger
SP MP demands rollback of school merger

Time of India

time41 minutes ago

  • Time of India

SP MP demands rollback of school merger

Lucknow: Samajwadi Party MP from Machhlishahr Priya Saroj has written to the Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan demanding review of the policy of 'integration of schools' in Uttar Pradesh and cancellation of the merger process. In her letter, Saroj said that the policy of integration of schools was being followed in Uttar Pradesh, which seems to be against the basic spirit of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act). "Under RTE Act, there is a provision that every child between the age of 6 to 14 years should be provided free and compulsory education within one kilometre of the nearest primary school from residence. If no school is available within a radius of one kilometre, then it is the responsibility of the govt to ensure admission of the child in the nearest school," she said. She said the current policy of the UP govt was violating the spirit of the Act. "This is hindering access to school for many children, leading more dropouts. Jobs of 2.5 lakh teachers and school staff of UP are also at risk," she said.

Gyanendra Sharma award to Joshi
Gyanendra Sharma award to Joshi

Time of India

time42 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Gyanendra Sharma award to Joshi

Lucknow: Veteran journalist Naveen Joshi was honoured with the 'Gyanendra Sharma Memorial Excellence in Journalism Award' at a seminar organised by the UP Journalists' Guild at the UP Press Club. The event was held in memory of senior journalist Gyanendra Sharma, a towering figure in Uttar Pradesh journalism. Prominent journalists of the city paid rich tributes to Sharma's illustrious career spanning five decades. Speakers, including Prof Ramesh Dixit, Sharad Pradhan, Ram Dutt Tripathi, Hemant Tiwari, and Suresh Bahadur Singh, praised Sharma's ability to evolve with changing times—from the era of RTI to the rise of electronic media—while remaining deeply committed to factual reporting. Joshi urged the Guild to consider recognising rural journalists in the future, who continue to uphold truthful journalism despite limited resources and challenges. Sharma's son Anupam Sharma and other family members were present.

Delhi govt.'s move to amend labour laws will strip lakhs of workers of their rights, say experts
Delhi govt.'s move to amend labour laws will strip lakhs of workers of their rights, say experts

The Hindu

timean hour ago

  • The Hindu

Delhi govt.'s move to amend labour laws will strip lakhs of workers of their rights, say experts

Trade union leaders and experts have criticised the Delhi government's move to amend at least two labour laws as part of its 'Ease of Doing Business' policy, saying the amendments will strip lakhs of workers in the city of several rights. The first pertains to changing the applicability of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, to establishments with 10 or more employees. Currently, the Act, which includes several safeguards for employees, such as leaves, weekly holidays, and a month's notice for dismissal, is applicable even to establishments with one employee. The government is also planning to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which protects workers in cases of lay-offs and closure of units employing 100 or more workers, by raising the minimum threshold of employees to 300. Directions were issued to senior officials at a review meeting on June 30, chaired by Lieutenant-Governor V.K. Saxena and attended by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, to make these changes, said a source. However, the government is yet to release any official statement on the matter. 'No protection' Anurag Saxena, CITU general secretary (Delhi), said introducing a threshold in the law will leave employees working in smaller establishments without any protection. 'Right now, if a person working at a small bakery or garment shop is fired illegally, he or she can file a complaint under the Act. Once the minimum threshold is increased to 10, workers at thousands of establishments with fewer than 10 employees will be placed outside the ambit of the law and left without any protection,' he said. A senior Delhi government official said once the four Labour Codes, which were passed in Parliament in 2019 and 2020, are implemented, workers in smaller establishments will be provided with 'some level of protection'. However, Mr. Saxena said, 'The labour codes could provide protection to employees in case of wages, but there is no safeguard for workers at a small establishment who are fired illegally.' Concurrent List The government is also looking to make changes to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which applies to commercial units across the country, as labour is part of the Concurrent List, which includes subjects over which the Union and State governments share legislative responsibilities. Currently, the Act provides protection to workers in the event of retrenchment and closure of firms employing 100 workers or more, as prior permission is required from the government or notice is to be given for such actions. The Delhi government plans to amend the Act to cover only establishments employing 300 or more workers. Professor Surajit Mazumdar at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, said an employee's rights do not depend on the size of the establishment. 'As things stand, many labour laws meant to protect employees are not enforced properly. And now if you remove the workers from the ambit of the law itself, the workers won't be able to even fight for their rights,' he said. The threshold in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has already been raised to 300 by the Bharatiya Janata Party governments in Gujarat (2021) and Assam (2018). The same change has also been proposed in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which is part of the four labour Codes, which have not been implemented amid resistance from labour unions across the country. Mr. Mazumdar said raising the threshold to 300 would be a way of introducing the labour Codes 'through the back door'. Gujarat had also amended the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2019 (the equivalent of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954) six years ago to cover units employing only 10 or more workers. 'The total number of employees in establishments with less than 10 workers in Delhi, who will be affected by the change in law, will be in the range of 7 to 20 lakh and the actual figure will be closer to 15 lakh,' said Mr. Mazumdar. He used the data from the Economic Census, 2013-14 and Delhi Economic Survey 2023-24 to arrive at the conclusion. Brijesh Goyal, chairman of Chamber of Trade & Industry, said the figure will be around 18-20 lakh workers, and Sucheta De, AICCTU national vice president, said the figure will be around 15-17 lakh workers. 'The entire practice is to keep most workers outside the scope of any legal protections,' Ms. De said. When reached out, the CM's office did not offer any comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store