Lingual Power

The acquittal of 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings – an attack that claimed 187 lives and injured over 800 – demands not just legal introspection but moral and institutional reflection.

- 

Nearly two decades after the tragedy, the courts have declared that the prosecution "utterly failed" to establish the guilt of those once convicted and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. What does this say about the credibility of our investigative and prosecutorial systems, and more importantly, about the cost of justice denied or miscarried? For years, these men languished in jail, with one of them even dying during the Covid-19 pandemic. Their conviction in 2015 was based on confessions and evidence now found unreliable or inadequately handled.

The High Court’s decision, spread across a 667-page judgment, pointed out glaring deficiencies: key witness testimonies questioned, confessions contested, and critical forensic material not preserved in sealed condition throughout. If this level of carelessness – or worse, institutional bias – can occur in a case of such magnitude, what does it say about the fate of countless others without media attention or legal support? The blasts themselves were among the most gruesome attacks in India’s modern history. They targeted Mumbai’s lifeline – the suburban rail network – striking commuters during evening rush hour with coordinated precision. The scale of human loss demanded swift justice. But justice, in its haste or its politics, appears to have been compromised.