In a significant turn of events in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, a special trial court has ruled that the sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against the accused were invalid, thus undermining the terror charges against them. The ruling came from Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, who pointed out critical flaws in the sanctioning process, leading to the collapse of a key aspect of the prosecution's case.
The court's analysis centered on Section 45 of the UAPA, which outlines mandatory procedural safeguards. This section requires valid sanctions from the central or state government to prosecute any terror offense under the Act. Furthermore, it mandates an independent review of the evidence by an authority appointed by the government. Judge Lahoti found that these safeguards were not scrupulously followed, indicating a lack of judicious application of mind in issuing the sanctions.
The defense, led by the late Shrikant Shivade and later advocate Viral Babar, consistently argued that the UAPA sanction was flawed. Other accused individuals also challenged the validity of the initial sanction issued in January 2009 and a subsequent one in 2011 by the additional chief secretary (home). The court ultimately deemed both sanctions "defective," asserting that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the mandatory "twin test" was conducted as required under Section 45(2) of the UAPA. The judge emphasized that this defect was not curable, thereby preventing the invocation of UAPA provisions.
The implications of this ruling are substantial. Advocates Ranjeet Sangle and J.P. Mishra, representing Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sadhvi Pragya Singh respectively, contended that the absence of the statutory safeguard under Section 45(2) invalidated the trial court's cognizance of UAPA charges. While Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal argued that the sanction's validity should be determined during the trial—a view supported by the Supreme Court in 2018—the special judge proceeded to review the sanctioning procedure and concluded that the UAPA charges could not be sustained due to the faulty sanction.
Adding to the complexity of the case, questions arose regarding the evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court noted a lack of conclusive evidence connecting a motorcycle found at the blast site to any explosive device, creating a significant gap in the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, discrepancies in victim documentation further weakened the prosecution's case.
Seventeen years after the deadly blast, which killed six and injured dozens in Malegaon, a special NIA court acquitted all seven accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The court cited a lack of concrete evidence, noting that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused conspired or executed the blast. The court also pointed to tampered engine and chassis numbers on the allegedly used motorcycle and alleged manipulation of victims' medical records.
Despite acquitting the accused, the court acknowledged the suffering of the victims and ordered compensation. The families of the deceased were awarded ₹2 lakh each, while the injured received ₹50,000 each. This compensation acknowledges the real pain caused by the blast while maintaining judicial impartiality regarding the accused individuals' culpability.
