Prime accused in 2008 Malegaon case Pragya Thakur blames SIMI for blast that killed 6 persons
Mumbai, Oct 3: BJP leader Pragya Thakur, a prime accused in the September 2008 bomb blast in Malegaon in Maharashtra alleged to have been carried out by Hindu extremists, on Thursday sought to shift the blame by claiming the explosion could have been set off by the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
Thakur's assertion was made during final arguments presented by her advocate J P Mishra in a special court in Mumbai hearing the 16-year-old case.
Mishra argued that an office of SIMI was located near the blast site, asserting the incident could have been an "accidental explosion" involving explosives transported by the banned group.
The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, killed six individuals and injured over 100 when a motorcycle rigged with explosives detonated near a mosque in Malegaon town in Nashik district, approximately 200 kilometres from Mumbai.
During the proceedings, Mishra alleged that local residents obstructed police access to the blast site immediately following the explosion and claimed this could have been a deliberate act to shield the accused and protect individuals associated with SIMI.
Whenever there is an incident such as this, people help the police. However, in this case, a large crowd gathered and pelted stones at police, preventing them from reaching the blast site, the advocate claimed.
"This could have been done to shield the accused. This could have been done to protect their people (belonging to SIMI)," Mishra alleged.
The prosecution has maintained that Thakur, along with co-accused, including Lt Col Prasad Purohit, conspired to orchestrate the blast, with the motorcycle identified as belonging to the BJP leader.
Notably, the court had previously ordered the former BJP Lok Sabha member from Bhopal, who is currently out on bail, to attend the hearing, but she was absent on Thursday.
Mishra further contended that the charges framed by the court did not assign specific roles to any of the accused, indicating gaps in the prosecution's case. He is expected to continue his arguments on Friday.
The 2008 blast in Malegaon was not an isolated incident. It occurred two years after a similar attack in the communally sensitive town on September 8, 2006, which killed 37 people.
In the 2006 case, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had arrested nine Muslim men allegedly linked to SIMI, claiming the blast aimed to incite communal tension.
While one of them died awaiting trial, in 2016 a special court discharged the remaining eight citing lack of evidence and labelling them as "scapegoats".
The 2006 Malegaon blast probe was later handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which subsequently arrested four individuals -- identified as Dhan Singh, Lokesh Sharma, Manohar Narwaria and Rajendra Chaudhary -- in 2013. They were granted bail in 2019.
In the ongoing trial for the 2008 incident, besides Thakur, other accused include Lt Col Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), and several others, all charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, an anti-terror act, and the Indian Penal Code.
The case, initially investigated by the ATS, was transferred to the NIA in 2011. The special court framed charges against the accused in October 2018, and throughout the trial, 323 prosecution witnesses were examined, with 34 of them turning hostile.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Fraud on Constitution': SC rules against religious conversion for quota benefits
New Delhi (PTI): In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has said religious conversions undertaken solely to avail reservation benefits without genuine belief amounted to a "fraud on the Constitution".
Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan passed the verdict on November 26 in a case filed by one C Selvarani and upheld a Madras High Court decision of January 24 denying a scheduled caste certificate to a woman who converted to Christianity but later claimed to be a Hindu to secure employment benefits.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, further underscored that one converted to a different religion, when they were genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts.
"However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” he noted.
The evidence presented before the bench was found to have clearly demonstrated that the appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith by attending church regularly.
"Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment," it noted.
"Such a dual claim made by her," said the bench "was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism".
The top court, therefore, held the conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the woman, who was a Christian by faith, but claimed to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, "would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution".
The top court underlined a religious conversion solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermined the fundamental social objectives of the quota policy and her actions were contrary to the spirit of reservation policies aimed at uplifting the marginalised communities.
Selvarani, born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, was baptised as a Christian shortly after birth but later claimed to be a Hindu and sought an SC certificate to apply for an upper division clerk position in Puducherry in 2015.
While her father belonged to the Valluvan caste, categorised under scheduled castes, he had converted to Christianity, as confirmed by documentary evidence.
The verdict said the appellant continued to practice Christianity, as seen by the regular church attendance, making her claim of being a Hindu untenable.
The bench noted individuals converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim SC benefits.
The judgement said there was no substantial evidence of the appellant's reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
Her claims lacked public declarations, ceremonies, or credible documentation to substantiate her assertions, it pointed out.
"One converts to a different religion when genuinely inspired by its principles. Conversion purely for reservation benefits, devoid of belief, is impermissible," the bench held.
The apex court opined in any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one lost their caste and couldn't be identified by it.
"As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through 'Arya Samaj'. No public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” it noted.
The bench said there was evidence against the appellant, and therefore, her contention raised that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, was "unsustainable".
