7/11 Mumbai blasts: SC stays HC acquittal verdict, but 12 freed men won't return to jail—here's why
The Supreme Court noted the Maharashtra government's concern that the July 21 Bombay High Court ruling could adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The Supreme Court bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notices to all 12 men and sought their replies on the state's appeal.
'We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment,' the court said in its brief order.
In its July 21 verdict, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. All the 12 accused have already walked free following their acquittal earlier this week. The HC quashed the judgment of a special MCOCA court, which handed over the death sentence to five and life term to seven people accused of conspiring and executing the Mumbai train bomb blasts on July 11, 2006.
Convicts Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan were handed over the death penalty for planting the bombs.
Among other convicts, Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh, and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh were granted life terms.
Maharashtra government challenged the Bombay HC judgement in the Supreme Court with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis calling the HC judgement 'very unfortunate.'
In the Supreme Court, however, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that he was not seeking an order to direct the accused persons, who have been released from prison following the judgment, to surrender.
However, he requested a stay of the judgment, saying that some of the observations made by the High Court in the judgment can impact other pending trials under the MCOCA, legal news website LiveLaw reported.
"Your lordships may consider saying, the judgment is stayed, however, they will not be required to come back to the prison," SG said.
The SC accepted the contention and said the Bombay HC ruling shall not carry precedential value until further orders. In its order, the SC bench said it was not necessary to bring the 12 acquitted persons back to jail.
"We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison," the SC bench court said.
We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent.
Seven bombs had ripped through the local lines in Mumbai on November 7, 2006. A total of 189 citizens lost their lives and nearly 820 innocents sustained severe injuries in these blasts, which are also known as the infamous "7/11 Mumbai Blasts."
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
11 minutes ago
- News18
'Very Disturbing, Alarming': Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Stray Dog Attack
Last Updated: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a media report on dog bites leading to rabies, terming it "disturbing and alarming." The Supreme Court on Monday took suo moto cognisance of an article about incidents of dog bites leading to rabies. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan described the news item published today in an English daily's Delhi edition as 'very disturbing and alarming". 'The news item contains some alarming and disturbing figures and facts," the bench said. It said every day, hundreds of dog bites were being reported in the city and on its outskirts, leading to rabies and ultimately, children and the aged were falling prey to the dreadful disease. 'We take suo motu cognisance of this news item," the bench said. 'Let this order be placed along with the news report before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders," it said. Woman Mauled To Death By Stray Dogs A 62-year-old woman was tragically killed by a pack of stray dogs while working in her field in Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, on Thursday, according to police reports. Circle Officer Rajesh Solanki reported that the incident took place in Salavatnagar village where Munni Devi, the wife of Hukm Singh, was weeding a paddy field when she was suddenly attacked by the dogs. The dogs inflicted severe injuries to her body and scalp, leading to her death. Despite villagers rushing to the field upon hearing her screams and successfully driving the dogs away, Munni Devi had already succumbed to her injuries. Her body has been sent for a post-mortem examination, Solanki added. view comments First Published: 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.
Hans India
32 minutes ago
- Hans India
High Court Judge Seeks Anonymous Status In Supreme Court Challenge Against Removal Recommendation
In an unprecedented judicial development, Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under concealed identity, challenging the conclusions of an investigative committee that advised his dismissal from the judiciary. The case appears on Monday's Supreme Court docket as "XXX vs The Union of India," with the placeholder representing Justice Varma's concealed identity. The anonymity request represents an unusual legal strategy, as such identity protection is typically reserved for sexual assault survivors, rape victims, and cases involving minors or juveniles. Justice Varma has specifically requested the apex court's permission to maintain confidentiality regarding his identity throughout the proceedings. The controversy stems from a significant cash discovery at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14. The judge was absent from the premises when the blaze occurred, leading to the unexpected revelation of substantial currency holdings within his quarters. Subsequently, a Supreme Court-constituted internal investigation committee determined there was "adequate evidence" supporting the allegations against the judicial officer. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members maintained direct oversight of the location where the monetary cache was discovered. Following these findings, Justice Varma was administratively transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On July 18, he formally approached the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the internal inquiry report and the former Chief Justice of India's dismissal recommendation. In his legal arguments, Justice Varma contends that revealing his identity would result in "irreversible damage and harm" should his application be rejected. He emphasizes that as an active High Court judge, the internal investigation process was structured to maintain strict confidentiality protocols. The petitioner argues that public disclosure of his identity at this juncture would significantly compromise his professional dignity and personal reputation, particularly since the allegations remain unsubstantiated through formal legal proceedings. He maintains that premature exposure could prejudice any future deliberations regarding his case. Justice Varma has specifically cited previous unauthorized media disclosures of confidential inquiry documents, claiming these leaks resulted in "misleading and prejudicial reporting" against him. He argues that such unauthorized revelations have already damaged his standing within the legal community and public perception. Currently facing potential impeachment proceedings in Parliament, Justice Varma's petition challenges both the procedural integrity and substantive conclusions of the internal investigation. He alleges the inquiry process contained fundamental procedural deficiencies and relied exclusively on "speculative questions rather than formal complaints." The case represents a unique intersection of judicial accountability mechanisms and individual privacy rights within India's legal system. The Supreme Court's handling of this anonymity request could establish important precedents for future cases involving judicial officers under investigation. The petition seeks comprehensive relief including the complete dismissal of the inquiry report and the withdrawal of removal recommendations made by judicial authorities. Justice Varma's legal team argues that the investigation failed to meet established procedural standards required for such serious allegations against sitting judges. This development occurs amid broader discussions regarding transparency and accountability within India's higher judiciary, highlighting the delicate balance between public scrutiny and individual rights within the legal profession.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash haul row: SC questions Justice Yashwant Varma over his petition against impeachment; posts plea for hearing on July 30
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday raised several questions while hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea seeking to invalidate an in-house inquiry committee's report that indicted him over a large quantity of burnt cash found at his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi high court judge. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, asking, "Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" The bench also expressed concern over the parties named in the petition and observed that the in-house inquiry report should have been filed along with the plea. In response, Sibal argued that Article 124 lays out the process and said, "The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme." The court then directed Sibal to file one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, and posted the matter for hearing on July 30. Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo In his plea, Justice Varma claimed the inquiry had "reversed the burden of proof", effectively requiring him to disprove the allegations instead of the panel proving them. He alleged that the panel's findings followed a 'preconceived narrative,' and that the inquiry was rushed 'even at the expense of procedural fairness'. According to the petition, the panel reached adverse conclusions without granting him a full and fair hearing. The report, prepared by a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana high court, concluded that Justice Varma and his family had "covert or active control" over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was discovered, amounting to serious misconduct warranting removal. The panel conducted the inquiry over ten days, examined 55 witnesses, and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 pm on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge; he currently serves in the Allahabad high court. Following the findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
