2006 Mumbai blasts are a stark reminder of glaring gaps in terror reportage

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on July 22, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/07/22/2006-mumbai-blasts-are-a-stark-reminder-of-glaring-gaps-in-terror-reportage

 

The acquittal by the Bombay High Court of 12 men accused of being responsible for the 2006 serial bomb blasts on Mumbai’s suburban trains has triggered a much-needed discussion on our criminal justice system, on the police and the investigative agencies, and the absence of closure in so many such cases.

On the evening of July 11, on a typically rainy monsoon day, millions of Mumbaikars made their way to take a train back to their homes. The suburban train system in Mumbai has often been referred to as a “lifeline”. However, on this particular evening, it turned out to be a “death line”. The seven blasts that occurred as the trains pulled into different stations along the route, all in the First-Class compartments, killed 189 people and injured 827.

Even as reporters scrambled to reach the stations, speculation about this being a “terror attack” had started. The front pages of newspapers a couple of days after the blasts carried stories of not just of how Mumbai, a city that apparently never sleeps, leapt back to normal the day after, but reports about how Pakistan was the main suspect behind the blasts. Within a day, a special anti-terror squad, led by senior police officer K P Raghuvanshi, was handed the responsibility to investigate the case. 

Within three months, this anti-terror squad claimed that the case had been solved. It picked up suspects not just in Mumbai but from other cities including Secunderabad. All the suspects were Muslim men. Thirteen of them were charged. 

The case was heard in a trial court which finally gave its ruling in 2015, nine years after the arrests. One man was acquitted, five were awarded death sentences and seven life sentences. Of these, one died in jail before the recent ruling acquitting all.  

Apart from what this case tells us about the criminal justice system and the glacial pace at which it works, there is another question: are there lessons that the media can draw from the coverage of such cases? 

While this case is high-profile and is based in a metropolitan centre like Mumbai, every now and then there are reports about cases of people who have spent long years in jail only to be acquitted of all charges. There are few if any follow-up stories on their families, how they survived, and how the released adjusted back to their lives after release. It’s almost as if such acquittals are so routine that they don’t merit any media attention. 

After the recent Bombay High Court ruling, the founding editor of Maktoob Media, Aslah Kayyalakkath posted this on X which ought to give us in the media a reason to pause and think:

“Since 2020, I have been collecting screenshots of news stories about Muslim men jailed in terror cases. Almost every single one-barring one or two-described these men as ‘terrorists,’ ‘bombmakers,’ ‘fugitives,’ or ‘commanders.’ There were so-called ‘explainers,’ ‘long forms,’ and ‘investigations’ about the ‘crime they committed.’ But remember, these were not stories about convicted men. These were about Muslim men who were accused or suspects. Legally, they were not proven guilty, but not a single media house chose to call them that. Some of them were acquitted because not a single piece of evidence stood against them. These news websites, without any shame or accountability, will publish a small story about the acquittal. They won’t feel regret for being complicit in the vendetta, just like the State doesn’t.”

You can agree or disagree with his point that some news websites are “complicit” but even a cursory glance at news coverage suggests that there is an absence of scepticism and a willing acceptance of the official version of such incidents. 

Going by the reporting in the newspapers on the morning after the Bombay High Court judgment, the coverage has followed a predictable pattern. There are detailed stories on the judgment and explanations about it, there are stories on the anguish felt by survivors of the blast who feel there is no closure, there are detailed sketches of the men released with their photographs (almost identical in each paper as the matter has obviously been supplied by the police), and an occasional piece on how the lawyers of the accused fought the case (including this interesting piece in Indian Express on how RTI was used to access information that blew apart the prosecution’s case). 

Yet, so far, there is little about the families of the accused and what they feel except this article by Tabassum Barnagarwala in Scroll. It is possible that in the days to come, some mainstream newspapers will make the effort to reach out to these families to give their side of the story too. 

Where mainstream media does need to introspect, perhaps an unrealistic expectation, is to look at how such cases are routinely reported from the time the incidents, like these serial train blasts, occur, to when the investigative agencies announce a breakthrough, to the case as it makes its slow way through courts.  

The norm has been to give the official version and leave it at that. The names and faces of the suspects are reported without clarifying that these people are “accused” and not convicted as pointed out by Aslah. That under the justice system, they deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt.  

The men acquitted by the Bombay High Court were not given the benefit of doubt. They were convicted by a court and that was that. Yet this ruling tells us that the story never ends with the first conviction. More so, the judgment itself should instruct us in the media why we need to be sceptical when confessions are readily provided by investigative agencies.

The judgment addresses the use of torture to extract confessions in this case and has termed it “barbaric and inhuman”. It has also questioned the confessions because it found them to be “incomplete and not truthful as some parts are a copy-paste of each other”.

For more details on the kind of torture used on the accused to extract confessions, this is a good time to read Josy Joseph’s book “The Silent Coup: A short history of India’s deep state”.  Published in 2021, Joseph looks at several such “terror” attacks in different parts of the country and raises legitimate questions.

He has a chapter on the 2006 Mumbai blasts in which he interviews the one man who was acquitted in 2015, Wahid Sheikh. In graphic detail, Sheikh describes the torture he went through and how he was framed. Incidentally, since his release in 2015, Sheikh has been part of the team that assembled invaluable evidence that contributed to the ultimate discharge of the accused in this case.

Mainstream media remains in thrall of official versions when it comes to a suspected terror attack. It is as if raising questions on these versions or even trying to unearth some other aspect of the story is “anti-national”.  

From my own experience, I can recall being told by one of my editors that we cannot question an official version as the media does not have the ability to independently verify what happened. This was after I raised questions, as did some others in the media about the daylight encounter killing of three men and one woman by the Gujarat police on June 15, 2004. The media was told that this was a terrorist module on its way to assassinate the then Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. The woman shot dead was 19-year-old  Ishrat Jahan, from Mumbra just outside Mumbai. Till today, we do not know the truth as the suspects are dead.  We are left only with what the police want to tell us.

Freedom of speech in India is slipping down a slippery slope

 

Broken News 

 

Published in Newslaundry on January 21, 2021

 

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/01/21/freedom-of-speech-in-india-is-slipping-down-a-slippery-slope

 

The good news we were all waiting for in these bleak times came with India's sensational win in the cricket Test series against Australia in Brisbane on January 19. But even as we celebrated good times for Indian cricket, the bad times for Indian journalism and freedom of speech and expression continued.

 

On the very day we celebrated India's cricket victory, a court in Kutch, Gujarat issued a non-bailable warrant against senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.  He was reportedly charged under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code relating to defamation.

 

Other journalists, most notably in Kashmir, continue to face arrest and harassment and have been charged under various laws.  So why should we take note of this particular warrant against Guha Thakurta?

 

As this piece in Newslaundry explains, Guha Thakurta had been slapped with a defamation suit by the Adani group for an article he wrote in Economic and Political Weekly in 2017 alleging that the Adani group had benefitted to the tune of Rs 500 crores because the Modi government had altered special economic zone rules.

 

Earlier in the year, he had co-written another article on the Adani group which had raised questions about the group evading taxes of up to Rs 1000 crores.  It is the second article that invited legal action. The governing board of the journal chose to have the article pulled down from the website.  This led to Guha Thakurta's resignation after a short two-year stint as editor.

 

The same article had also appeared in The Wire, which was also charged but chose to contest it. The case was finally dismissed in 2019 after Adani unconditionally withdrew proceedings. Although the case against  The Wire, its editors and his two co-authors were withdrawn, those against Guha Thakurta remained.

 

A case that lay dormant since 2017 has suddenly found a new life in 2021 and the question everyone is asking is, why now?  There could be a simple explanation. On the other hand, this case could be something like a warning being sent out to other journalists digging into the functioning of a powerful industrialist who also happens to be a close ally of the prime minister. A few months ago, some questions were raised in the media about the Adani group taking over the Mumbai airport after it also acquired six other airports in India.  But nothing more has emerged about these acquisitions.

 

We also cannot forget the continuing incarceration of the young stand-up comic Munawar Faruqui. Picked up by the Indore police on January 1 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments (although the police admit they have no evidence to support this), he continues to be in jail along with five other friends. Each application for bail is turned down despite the lack of evidence as this story on the portal Article 14 sets out. And as if that was not enough, he now faces another case from Uttar Pradesh, for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. These are virtually copycat complaints, filed by members of the Sangh Parivar in states run by the BJP.

 

It is not hard to figure out why Faruqui is being targeted.  Had his name been Suresh or Ramesh or Surinder, would he have received the same treatment? Clearly not.  States like UP and now MP make no bones about sending out a message to all Muslims that they must behave, or else.  They cannot marry or even be seen out with a Hindu girl, and they must not be even suspected of cracking jokes about religion, lack of evidence notwithstanding. Freedom of expression, or freedom of choice, are clearly rights that are available only to some, not all, under these governments.

 

These two cases, especially that of Faruqui, should have set off alarm bells in this country amongst people who believe that the right to freedom of expression is central to our democratic values.  But sadly, with all else that is happening, this could be one more case that will be forgotten.  And who knows how long Faruqui and friends will languish in jail for a crime they did not commit. They are joining a galaxy of such individuals across India.

 

Freedom of expression, and freedom of the press, were also the subjects that featured in an important judgement delivered by the Bombay High Court just a day before the warrant against Guha Thakurta.  This was in response to a slew of public interest litigations by a group of former police officers and activists against the "media trial" conducted by some television channels on the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

 

The 251-page judgement contains much that ought to be debated within the media. It raises important questions about the importance of freedom of expression and how far it can be stretched. It discusses whether the media, particularly the electronic media, has been able to self-regulate as expected.  And it sets out some guidelines for media coverage, especially of cases involving death by suicide as in the Rajput case.

 

The court singled out two channels, Times Now and Republic, finding their coverage of the case, "prima facie contemptuous" and stated that they played the role of "investigator, prosecutor as well as the judge".  The judgement is scathing when it writes:

 

"In an attempt to out-smart each other (for reasons which we need not discuss here), these two TV channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation thereby exposing, what in their perception, Mumbai Police had suppressed, caring less for the rights of other stakeholders and throwing the commands of the CrPC and all sense of propriety to the winds."

 

But that said, the court held that it would not be useful to pursue contempt proceedings against the two channels. Instead it discussed why the guidelines that had already been laid down by the Press Council of India (PCI), on coverage of death by suicide (which apply only to the print media), and the advisory sent out by the News Broadcasters Authority (NBA) last year, were not being followed.

 

The judgement concludes that the self-regulatory authority set up by the NBA has failed to check the channels that violate these guidelines. It also faults the government for not stepping in despite complaints that clearly related to violations of the provisions of the Programme Code set out under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act.

 

It recommends that until such time as a proper and effective way to regulate the electronic media is set up, the PCI guidelines on coverage of cases relating to death by suicide should also apply to the electronic media.  And it also outlines guidelines for the media and that violating these could invite contempt of court. 

 

It remains to be seen whether such a judgement will tone down the hysterical reportage in some channels on such cases.  However, the question that the media as a whole must discuss is whether courts should be laying down guidelines for media reporting.

 

In the light of the Faruqui case, I will leave readers with the following passage in the judgement, that quotes from the Supreme Court's ruling in the LIC vs. Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.), reported in (1992) 3 SCC 637.  I believe it has a particular relevance for these times:

 

"The words ‘freedom of speech and expression’ must, therefore, be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this free country, therefore, has the right to air his or her views through the printing and/or the electronic media subject of course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy democracy. Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship."