The Supreme Court, on Thursday, stayed the Bombay High Court’s judgment acquitting all 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blast case. However, the release of the 12 men will not be stayed. The SC verdict came in response to an appeal by the Maharashtra government which apprehended that certain observations of the High Court verdict could “adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA)”. The Supreme Court, in this context, clearly mentioned that “the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent.” In any case, the victims of the dastardly terror attack find themselves ditched by the justice system as the culprits, whoever they are, continue to roam free. Nearly two decades after the devastating Mumbai train blasts claimed 189 lives and left over 800 injured, the Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit all 12 convicted accused has cast a long, painful shadow over India’s justice system. It is true that the judiciary must operate on the cardinal principle that no innocent shall be punished. However, the recent acquittal, which cites lack of credible evidence, procedural lapses, and questionable investigation, has raised a grave concern. The moot question is: has the system failed both the victims and the cause of justice?
The High Court’s observations apparently presume a prosecution case built on shaky confessions, implausible witness testimonies, and forensic shortcomings. It can be inferred from the judgement that the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), tasked with investigating one of the deadliest terror attacks in Indian history, ostensibly stitched together a narrative riddled with inconsistencies. The confessional statements, deemed unreliable by the court, were arguably extracted under duress. Eyewitnesses, as per the court, surfaced after “inexplicable” delays, and crucial forensic evidence—like the nature of explosives or chain of custody—was poorly handled. Most critically, the court flagged a “misleading sense of resolution” built on wrongful convictions rather than solid proof. Irrespective of the merit of the court’s order, the true perpetrators of the carnage remain unpunished. This casts an utterly grim shadow over the idea of national security, especially in a nation that sees itself as the staunchest critic of terrorism, and doesn’t tire of denouncing it on international fora. For survivors and families of the victims, the judgment has landed almost like a second explosion. It tells them that after all this time, the state has failed to hold anyone accountable. Statements from survivors—men and women who still live with physical injuries, psychological trauma, and paltry compensation—reflect heartbreak at the apparent futility of seeking justice. “If all 12 are innocent,” the obvious question then is, “who killed 189 people?”
This question must reverberate with urgency. The real concern is that such a verdict was possible because the investigative and prosecutorial process might have been fundamentally flawed from the outset. The allegations against the ATS is that in its rush to deliver arrests and closure, it has led to half-truths. Former Mumbai Police Commissioner AN Roy’s strong defence of the original investigation indicates that there could be much more in the case than what meets the eye of the Mumbai High Court. Roy has maintained that the investigation was conducted “truthfully” and “professionally,” despite the High Court pointing to glaring procedural and evidentiary deficiencies. The case, it is clear, has not yet settled till finality.
Following the verdict, the Indian judiciary and executive have a tough task at hand. There is a pressing need to confront how the country’s counter-terror architecture and judiciary, as a combined whole in the justice delivery system, failed to serve the core purpose. Whether there is a flaw in the justice system or the ATS and other investigative agencies failed to find the culprits, from the general people’s point of view, justice remains elusive. The case should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reforms to strengthen investigative agencies and reinforce judicial safeguards. The ball is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. The victims of 7/11 deserve truth, accountability, and closure—not an empty courtroom and unanswered questions.