The year 2025 will be remembered as a watershed moment for India’s criminal justice system, as two landmark verdicts tore into the foundations of high-profile terror prosecutions and reignited debate on wrongful incarceration.
On July 21, a Special Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Anil S. Kilor and Shyam C. Chandak overturned the conviction of 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, which killed 189 people and injured over 800. The men had spent nearly two decades in prison: five under death sentences and seven serving life terms, before the court declared that the prosecution had “utterly failed” to prove its case.
“The prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts. It is hard to believe that the accused committed the crime. Hence, their conviction is quashed and set aside,” the Bench observed in its 671-page judgment.
The court found glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s three pillars: confessions, recoveries, and eyewitness accounts.
Multiple confessional statements under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were found to contain “identical portions”, which the judges described as “copied” and therefore unreliable. Test identification parades were riddled with procedural lapses, and the chain of custody for explosive material was broken.
In a passage that captured the essence of the verdict, the Bench warned against the dangers of false closure: “Creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution … while in reality, the true threat remains at large. Essentially, this is what the case at hand conveys.”
The acquittal came nearly 19 years after the blasts ripped through Mumbai’s suburban trains on July 11, 2006. One of the accused, Kamal Ansari, 50, died in custody in 2021 while awaiting the appeal—underscoring the human cost of prolonged trials and systemic delays.
Just weeks later, on July 31, a special NIA (National Investigation Agency) court in Mumbai delivered another stunning verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, acquitting all seven accused, including BJP MP Pragnya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, after 17 years of trial. Special Judge A.K. Lahoti held that the prosecution had failed to produce credible evidence linking the accused to the conspiracy.
“Upon comprehensive evaluation, the prosecution has failed to bring any cogent evidence … the evidence is riddled with inconsistencies … the Court has to extend the benefit of doubt to all accused,” the judgment stated.
The court dismantled the prosecution’s narrative point by point: there was no proof that the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Thakur; no evidence that Purohit procured RDX or assembled a bomb; forensic samples were contaminated; and sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was defective, making its invocation invalid.
In words that resonated beyond the courtroom, Judge Lahoti wrote: “Terrorism has no religion … the court cannot convict on mere perception; there has to be cogent evidence. Mere suspicion cannot take the place of real proof.”
The Malegaon verdict triggered sharp political reactions, with Thakur calling it a “slap on the faces of those who coined the term saffron terror.” Victims’ families, however, moved the Bombay High Court challenging the acquittal. Notices have since been issued to the accused, the NIA, and the Maharashtra government.
Both judgments exposed systemic flaws in India’s terror investigations: over-reliance on confessions, procedural shortcuts, weak forensic handling, and failure to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, the courts observed. The verdicts also highlighted the devastating consequences of wrongful incarceration: 12 men in the 7/11 case spent nearly two decades behind bars; in Malegaon, the accused endured 17 years of stigma and trial.
While the 7/11 blasts case involved Muslim men who were branded as operatives of Pakistan-based groups, the Malegaon case centered on Hindu accused, including a sitting MP, and became a flashpoint in debates over ‘saffron terror.’ The contrasts in both the cases extend beyond ideology. In the case of former, most of the acquitted men came from low-income, working-class backgrounds and languished in prison for years, but in the latter case, Lt. Col. Purohit and Thakur got bail in 2017. While the Maharashtra government appealed against the release in 7/11 case, neither the NIA nor the State has appealed against the Malegaon verdict yet.
In July, the Supreme Court, while hearing Maharashtra appeal against the 7/11 verdict, stayed the High Court judgment as precedent but did not order the acquitted men back to jail. No fresh hearing date has been announced. In Malegaon, the victims’ appeal, admitted in September 2025, is pending before the Bombay High Court, with notices issued to the NIA and the acquitted accused. Whether higher courts uphold these verdicts or order retrials will determine the next chapter in a saga that has already spanned nearly two decades.