A Grim Reflection on India’s Judicial and Investigative Failure

Poonam Sharma
The acquittal of 12 men who were earlier convicted for the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in India, has shocked the country—not because justice was done, but because justice was so excruciatingly delayed and so comprehensively trashed.

On July 11, 2006, seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Mumbai’s Western Railway suburban trains during peak hours, killing over 180 innocent commuters and injuring hundreds more. The country reeled in horror. Families were shattered, children orphaned, and the collective soul of a nation was wounded.

Now, 19 years after the trial, the Bombay High Court has acquitted all 12 men who were convicted in a special court in 2015. The judges observed that the prosecution “utterly failed” to establish their case. Not only were the accused not conclusively linked to the blasts, but the prosecution couldn’t even establish for certain the type of explosives used. Testimonies by witnesses were unreliable and claimed recoveries from the accused were made inadmissible as evidence.

This is not merely a tragic tale of the lives of the 12 men who spent close to two decades in jail for a crime that they might not have been guilty of—it is a criticism of India’s judicial and investigative system. The question is really: how did this occur? How did a case of this scale disintegrate so spectacularly?

A Failure of Institutions
First, the investigating authorities faltered. Whether it was the Maharashtra ATS, local police, or the central agencies, the investigation was sloppy, prejudiced, and more in the pursuit of quick conviction than of truth. The accused were arrested in the weeks and months after the blasts, tortured, and forced to confess. Their lives were destroyed without a shred of irrefutable evidence.

Second, the judicial process closed its eyes to due process. The special court convicted the accused based on confessions—most of which were claimed to have been obtained under torture. The legal threshold for conviction in a terror trial has to be high; rather, the prosecution relied on tales, surmise, and tenuous links, and the judiciary swallowed it.

And lastly, the political system collapsed. When the blasts happened, the central and state governments were both in Congress hands. Rather than guaranteeing a fair and impartial inquiry, the system seemed to value communal imagery and populist rhetoric. The opposition did not call for responsibility. The media conducted trials of their own. And the public, weeping and cowering, accepted arrests as closure.

But fiction-based closure is not justice.

What about the Victims?
Let us not forget that 180 lives were lost in the Mumbai train bombings of 2006. Families still mourn. The survivors still have shrapnel in their bodies and trauma in their minds. They had been informed that justice was served in 2015, when the special court sentenced five of the accused to death and seven to life imprisonment.

Now, that “justice” has fallen. If the 12 men weren’t guilty, who was? Where are the real perpetrators? Has the state even pursued its investigation further? Or was the conviction of these men merely a box-ticking exercise whereby the state could boast efficiency whilst allowing the real perpetrators to get off scot-free?

This isn’t just a case of miscarriage of justice—it is state-complicit abandonment of truth.

The Cost of Injustice

The actual terrorists were never apprehended, strengthening other terrorist groups and diluting national security.

The public has lost faith in the judiciary and police, as citizens now wonder if the legal system is there to safeguard them—or to perform for political spectacles.

The families of the victims have been deprived of closure. If the guilty were not convicted, what does it reflect upon the deaths of their own kin?

Justice delayed is justice denied. But justice invented is a crime in itself.

A Call for Reform
The criminal justice system of India cannot afford to mess up cases of this kind. We need reforms—urgent and unapologetic.

Investigative Accountability: The police officers who frame innocent men should be prosecuted. A system that allows custodial torture, coerced confessions, and planted evidence needs dismantling.

Judicial Prudence: Trial courts cannot continue to operate as conviction factories. Conviction in a terror case should entail the highest standard of proof, not convenient stories.

Media Responsibility: Media should avoid conducting parallel trials that shape public opinion and contaminate the judicial process. National trauma cannot be transformed into primetime propaganda.

Political Neutrality: Governments need to be kept on their toes for politicizing terror cases for electoral or communal purposes. Cross-party agreement on police and judicial independence is crucial.

Victim Support and Compensation: Psychological, financial, and institutional assistance must be provided to the acquitted as well as to the families of victims. For the innocent men who spent decades behind bars, acquittal is not sufficient—the state has to apologize and compensate.

 Who Will Answer
The 2006 Mumbai blasts were not simply a terror strike—they were a breakdown in the country’s conscience. And the failure of the justice system to react with integrity, precision, and determination has merely deepened the wound. The acquittal of all 12 men places India in front of an uncomfortable reality: we might have convicted the innocent, and acquitted the guilty.

This is not justice. This is not law. This is a sophisticated betrayal of all that the Republic professed to believe in.

The Indian state now has to account—not merely to those who lost their lives, but to those who survived a twenty-year-long deceit.