Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
The acquittal of all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court on July 21 has stunned the nation. The devastating attacks, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, led to a trial court convicting the accused in 2015. But the higher court overturned that verdict, citing the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence. This case reflects a broader trend in India's criminal justice system—prosecutions in high-profile terror cases and other serious crimes often collapse due to weak evidence, procedural delays, and political interference, leaving victims and the public disillusioned.
There are legal and political factors behind these failures. Drawing on the Mumbai case, the 2G spectrum scandal, and systemic trends, one can understand why convictions often remain elusive.
Robust evidence is the foundation of any successful prosecution, yet criminal cases in the country often stumble here. In the Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court flagged unreliable witnesses, flawed identification parades, and inadmissible confessions allegedly extracted through torture.
The prosecution couldn't even specify what type of bombs were used—an indicator of unpreparedness. This evidentiary fragility is not limited to terror cases. For instance, in the 2017 2G spectrum case, all accused, including A Raja and K Kanimozhi, were acquitted because the CBI failed to produce sufficient documents or reliable witnesses after years of investigation.
A 2019 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report reinforces this view, citing uncorroborated testimonies and coerced confessions as recurring issues. Courts demand strong, verifiable proof—when agencies rely on shaky foundations, acquittals become inevitable.
Another chronic flaw is the lack of a comprehensive witness protection law. Witnesses often retract statements or refuse to testify due to fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue, noting that laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) offer only limited protection. In cases involving organised crime, threats from powerful syndicates further weaken the prosecution. Strengthening evidence collection and ensuring witness safety are thus essential reforms.
Procedural delays and systemic inefficiencies
The nation's criminal justice system is bogged down by procedural delays and inefficiencies, which undermine even the strongest cases. Investigations often involve multiple agencies, causing coordination failures. The 2002 Akshardham attack case is a clear example—the Supreme Court, in 2014, criticised the investigation's lack of diligence after a series of handovers between agencies.
Special courts, meant to fast-track serious crime trials, often share space with regular courts, creating backlogs. The Vidhi report points out that even high-profile cases under UAPA or MCOCA languish for years due to overburdened dockets and limited resources. The Mumbai train blasts case, for instance, took nearly two decades to reach a final verdict—long enough for evidence to degrade and witness recollections to fade.
Laws like UAPA permit prolonged pre-charge detention—up to 180 days, compared to 24 hours under the Criminal Procedure Code. Agencies sometimes detain suspects without building strong cases, assuming that the legal process itself serves as punishment. But once cases reach higher courts, judges scrutinise them more rigorously, often leading to acquittals, as seen in the Mumbai case. Better agency coordination and court infrastructure are key to reducing delays and improving outcomes.
Judicial scepticism and the misuse of stringent laws
The country has stringent laws—like the now-defunct TADA, repealed POTA, UAPA, and Maharashtra's MCOCA—to empower law enforcement against terror and organised crime. But when misapplied, they often lead to prosecution failures.
In the Mumbai case, the prosecution leaned heavily on MCOCA, but the High Court found the supporting evidence too weak, resulting in acquittals. The Vidhi report highlights that POTA Review Committees found no prima facie evidence in 1,006 out of 1,529 cases by 2005—indicating misuse.
Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail is denied if courts see any reasonable ground for guilt. This leads to prolonged detentions without trial. However, higher courts remain wary of overreach. For example, in the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, all 39 accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence beyond coerced confessions. Judicial scepticism is widespread, even in financial scam cases, where agencies detain suspects but fail to produce solid evidence.
Judges play a key role—no matter how stringent the law, a judge's discretion determines its application. When evidence is weak, courts hesitate to convict, especially in an era where judicial outlooks are influenced by liberal constitutional values.
The perception that the legal process is the punishment has become more entrenched. Agencies may use long detentions to pressure suspects, but without credible evidence, courts intervene—leading to collapses like that of the Mumbai case. Thus, the focus must return to meticulous evidence collection and responsible application of law.
Political interference and federal tensions
Political dynamics often complicate criminal prosecutions. Federalism-based conflicts between the Centre and states delay investigations. Agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) require state cooperation. The controversial National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) proposal failed after 14 states opposed it, citing threats to federal autonomy. Similarly, Gujarat's 2015 GCTOC Bill was delayed due to a lack of Presidential assent, stalling state-level efforts.
Political alignments can also shape outcomes. The 2G spectrum case offers a telling example.
On December 21, 2017, a special CBI court in New Delhi acquitted all accused—including A Raja and K. Kanimozhi—calling the case baseless. The court noted that despite one and a half years of waiting, the CBI failed to bring in evidence or witnesses. Judge OP Saini expressed frustration, saying the agency 'couldn't care less".
This came at a time when the DMK appeared poised for a resurgence after J Jayalalithaa's death, while the BJP, with actor Rajinikanth hesitating to join politics, seemed to seek renewed ties with M Karunanidhi—its one-time ally during the Vajpayee era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had even been photographed with Karunanidhi's family just months before the verdict.
Was the CBI 'nudged" to go soft on DMK leaders?
Media trials further complicate matters. In high-profile cases, widespread coverage often convinces the public that an accused is guilty long before a court weighs the evidence. But judges—aware of media excesses—may be repelled by aggressive reportage, affecting their outlook. Public perception, shaped by these narratives, pushes agencies to act fast, sometimes cutting corners. But legal outcomes depend on facts, not headlines.
Reducing political interference and improving Centre-state coordination are vital to restoring integrity in prosecutions.
Legal representation and the prosecution-defence gap
The outcome of trials often hinges on the quality of legal representation. There's a stark imbalance between well-resourced defence lawyers and overburdened or undertrained state prosecutors.
To fix this, the nation must invest in the training and independence of public prosecutors. Only then can they counter the skill and strategy of top defence lawyers.
Road ahead: Reforming the system
The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system.
Evidentiary lapses, systemic delays, misuse of harsh laws, political meddling, and lopsided legal representation all contribute to failed prosecutions. These failures cut across terror cases, corruption scandals, and violent crimes, leaving victims without closure and eroding public faith in the system.
Reforms are urgent. Investigative agencies need better training. Witness protection laws must be enacted. Court infrastructure must expand to reduce backlogs. Political interference must be checked by preserving institutional autonomy. And prosecution teams must be strengthened to ensure fair competition in the courtroom.
top videos
View all
Justice in India cannot remain hostage to inefficiencies and influence. A legal system that upholds fairness, efficiency, and accountability is the only way to deliver justice—and restore faith that those behind mass killings, like the Mumbai train blasts, will face the consequences of their crimes.
The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
Bombay High Court judiciary justice Mumbai train blasts
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 22, 2025, 18:45 IST
News opinion Opinion | Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Ex-Beas SHO gets 10 years imprisonment in 1993 fake encounter case
After 32 years of legal battle, a CBI court in Mohali Wednesday sentenced former Beas (then SHO) Paramjit Singh (68) (retd SP) to 10 years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him for abducting two Punjab Police constables who were later killed in a staged encounter in 1993. The court acquitted Inspector Dharam Singh (then SHO of Lopoke), ASI Kashmir Singh, and ASI Darbara Singh due to lack of concrete evidence, while S-I Ram Lubhiya (incharge, Butala police post) died during trial proceedings. The case dates back to April 18, 1993, when Constable Surmukh Singh (Muchhal village, Baba Bakala) and Constable Sukhwinder Singh (Khiala village, Amritsar), both in their early 20s, were picked up by the police and illegally detained. Later, the Majitha police claimed they had killed 'two unidentified militants' in an encounter and cremated their bodies as unclaimed. CBI public prosecutor Anmol Narang stated, 'Surmukh Singh was picked up by a team led by then SHO Paramjit Singh around 6 pm, while Sukhwinder Singh was picked by S-I Ram Lubhiya earlier the same day at 2 pm.' The next day, Sukhwinder's parents were denied access to meet him at Beas police station. Four days later, the Majitha police under SHO Dharam Singh falsely claimed an encounter and later filed an 'untraced report'. Acting on the Supreme Court's orders, the CBI began its probe on December 26, 1995, and identified the deceased as the two constables. A formal FIR was registered on February 28, 1997, and a chargesheet was filed in 1999 against five officers. Victims' counsel Jagjit Singh Bajwa and Sarabjit Singh Verka said, 'Despite charges being framed in 1999, the trial was delayed for over two decades due to baseless petitions. Only 27 witnesses were examined. Others died or turned hostile.' Charanjit Singh, son of late Surmukh Singh, while speaking to the media outside the court, said, 'These police officials not only killed my father but also ruined my life. I had been selected for recruitment in the police department, but because of the allegations/ this case made by them, I was not issued the appointment letter. I am seeking justice for that as well.'
India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
