Terrorism is among the gravest crimes against humanity. It has no religion, no ideology, and no justification that can excuse the deliberate targeting of innocent people. Those who plant bombs in crowded places or hospitals wage war not only against the state but also against ordinary citizens who have no role in any political or communal conflict. Seen against this backdrop, the Gujarat High Court’s decision to uphold the convictions in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case on Tuesday deserves appreciation. The court merely confirmed the verdict delivered by the special trial court in 2022, but the significance of the judgment is immense. Rarely has an Indian court upheld the death sentence awarded to as many as 38 convicts, while confirming life imprisonment for 11 others in a single case.
Justice In Terror Cases
The Ahmedabad serial blasts remain one of the darkest chapters in India’s battle against terrorism. Twenty-one coordinated explosions within little more than an hour claimed 56 innocent lives and left more than 200 injured. Some victims were undergoing treatment in hospitals when the bombs exploded. The death toll could have been far higher had several unexploded devices functioned as intended. A technical failure in the triggering mechanism proved to be a blessing in disguise. No doubt, the criminals were able to terrorise the whole state—nay, the whole country—for a short while. The 2002 Gujarat riots undoubtedly left deep scars on the nation’s conscience. But no grievance, however genuine, can justify the murder of innocent men, women, and children. Revenge cannot be a substitute for justice. The banned Indian Mujahideen had itself claimed responsibility for the attacks at the time, removing any ambiguity about its involvement.
Victims And Judicial Independence
Equally significant is the High Court’s direction that the Gujarat government compensate the victims. Families of those killed, as well as those who suffered grievous and simple injuries, have been awarded compensation, with a clear deadline for payment. Justice is not complete without acknowledging the suffering of victims and ensuring that relief reaches them without endless bureaucratic delay.
One aspect deserves special emphasis. Judicial decisions must never be viewed through the prism of the religion or identity of either the judges or the accused. Recent social media attacks on a Madhya Pradesh judge, Tabassum Khan, who sentenced cow vigilantes in a lynching case, are deeply disturbing. Such campaigns seek to intimidate judges for doing their constitutional duty. An independent judiciary is the strongest safeguard against both terrorism and mob justice. Judges cannot dispense justice if they must constantly fear abuse, intimidation, or physical harm. It is the state's responsibility to ensure their security. Only judges who are free from fear can decide cases without fear or favour, the very foundation on which the rule of law rests.
