Malegaon Case Verdict Today: A Blast from the Past that Witnessed 17 Years of Legal Twists and Turns
This judgement marks a crucial point in one of the country’s most prolonged and politically sensitive terror trials
Seventeen years after a deadly blast struck the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Maharashtra, a special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Mumbai is scheduled to announce its verdict on Thursday.
This judgement marks a crucial point in one of India’s most prolonged and politically sensitive terror trials, characterised by several twists — including changes in the investigating agencies, accusations of fabricated evidence, and key witnesses turning hostile.
The Blast and Its Aftermath
On September 29, 2008, an explosive device fastened to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon, claiming six lives and injuring over 100 people. The timing of the explosion was especially volatile, as it occurred on the eve of Navratri and during the holy month of Ramzan, leading to immediate fears of communal disturbance.
The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) initially handled the investigation. They promptly tracked the motorcycle’s registration and made several arrests, alleging that members of Hindu right-wing groups were involved.
Key Accused and Changing Versions
Among those put on trial are former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. Other accused include Major (Retd.) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. In its initial findings, the ATS applied the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), claiming the accused, linked to Abhinav Bharat, conspired to build a “Hindu Rashtra” and provoke communal tensions.
However, the case underwent a major change in direction when the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took charge of the probe in 2011. In its 2016 supplementary chargesheet, the NIA dropped MCOCA provisions, pointing to questionable legal procedures followed by the ATS, and alleged coercive interrogation methods and other irregularities.
Although the NIA cleared some of the accused, the special court on December 27, 2017, ruled that Sadhvi Pragya and six others would face trial under several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including charges of criminal conspiracy, murder, and promoting religious disharmony.
The Lengthy Trial
The formal trial began in 2018. During the proceedings, the prosecution presented a total of 323 witnesses. However, 37 of them turned hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.
Both sides concluded their final arguments. The NIA urged the court to impose strict punishment on the accused, stating that the blast aimed to spread terror among the Muslim community and undermine national security. The accused, on the other hand, denied the charges. Sadhvi Pragya alleged tampering of evidence, while Purohit argued that there was no concrete proof against him and that the investigation was flawed.
A Much-Awaited Verdict
The July 31 verdict is eagerly awaited for multiple reasons.
Legal Impact: The judgement will determine the fate of the seven accused, who face either severe penalties — possibly life imprisonment under UAPA — or acquittal if the prosecution cannot prove the charges beyond doubt. Irrespective of the outcome, appeals in higher courts are almost certain, indicating that the legal battle may not conclude here.
Political Consequences: Given Sadhvi Pragya Thakur’s political standing, the verdict holds political significance. A conviction may influence her political trajectory and impact the BJP’s image, while an acquittal will be celebrated by her supporters as a moral victory. The case has long been politicised, with mutual allegations of bias and misuse of investigative powers.
Reputation of Investigative Agencies: The judgement will also reflect on the conduct of both the ATS and the NIA. The NIA had previously criticised the ATS for lapses in the initial investigation and raised questions due to the large number of hostile witnesses. This verdict will test the Indian judicial system’s capacity to resolve long-standing, high-profile, and politically charged cases.
