Barely 18 years down the line after one of the most tragic days in the history of Mumbai, the case of the 2006 train bombings is yet to conclude in the Supreme Court of the land. The Supreme Court has ordered the acquittal of 12 people who had been convicted earlier by a Bombay High Court ruling that most people have opposed as a move that could revive terrorism. The legal concern now shifts to whether the acquittals can pass a legal test.
Supreme Court Halts Acquittal in Mumbai Blasts Case
In another landmark court ruling, the Supreme Court of India has, to some extent, stood without prejudice to the order of the Bombay High Court, which had reportedly acquitted 12 people in the case of the train bombings in Mumbai in 2006. Although acknowledging the seriousness of the case, the Supreme Court held that the acquittal could not be deemed a precedent and even stated that the criminal would not be re-arrested when the appeal was to be heard.
All those who were discharged were served with notices by the Supreme Court when the Maharashtra government filed a special leave petition. The petition challenges the High Court\’s decision to set aside the previous conviction, arguing that it was based on an inaccurate appreciation of the evidence and trial procedures. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld that their present freedom will not change till the time additional hearings are done.
Remembering the 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts
On July 11, 2006, Mumbai was disturbed as a series of seven synchronised bomb attacks took place in the compartments of local trains. This was an attack that killed 189 and injured more than 824. After a big investigation, 12 individuals were found guilty in 2015; however, the Bombay High Court overturned the verdict in May 2024, an event that caused a massive reaction in society and the political echelon.
Legal and Political Repercussions
The hesitation of the acquittal by the Supreme Court is a symptom of a timid attitude of the Court towards the convictions related to terrorism. Although the court had to respect the rights of the acquitted, the court did not disregard the question raised by the state. Legal experts believe that this case could set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, while the families of the victims continue to grapple with the aftermath.
