In a dramatic reversal, NIA cites UAPA Section 16 to demand the death penalty, rejecting its earlier stance and urging the court not to spare the accused due to witness defection
MUMBAI – In a surprising U-turn, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has asked a special court in Mumbai to impose the death penalty under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. The accused include the BJP leader and former MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur.
The case, which has dragged on for 17 years, involves a blast that killed six Muslims and injured over 100. The NIA’s final written submission — more than 1,500 pages long — was filed on Saturday after final arguments concluded. The court has now reserved its verdict, with Judge AK Lahoti expected to pronounce judgment on May 8.
Sadhvi Pragya, along with Col Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Swami Dayanand Pandey and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, are accused of plotting and executing the blast as part of a wider conspiracy linked to Hindutva ideology.
Despite earlier efforts by the NIA to get Sadhvi Pragya discharged — arguing that there was no solid evidence against her — the agency has now reversed its stance. It has urged the court not to offer any leniency, even as some 32 of the 323 witnesses retracted their statements, reportedly under pressure.
“The agency has appealed for the strictest punishment for the accused, citing Section 16 of the UAPA. If any terrorist activity results in death, the guilty can be sentenced to death,” said Shahid Nadeem, a lawyer from Jamiat Ulema Maharashtra’s Legal Cell, who has been fighting the case on behalf of the victims.
Jamiat’s senior lawyer Sharif Sheikh also reiterated the gravity of the evidence against Sadhvi Pragya. “She took part in conspiracy meetings and her motorbike, an LML Freedom, was used to plant the bomb. This alone shows her clear involvement,” he said.
The shift in NIA’s position has sparked renewed debate, especially in light of earlier allegations that the agency showed bias in handling the case. Former special public prosecutor Rohini Salian had publicly accused the NIA of being soft on the accused, particularly Sadhvi Pragya, after a change in government.
She had claimed, “After the new government came to power, I was asked to go soft against Sadhvi Pragya and others. I refused to do so. That’s why I had to step away.”
Salian’s allegations had raised serious questions about political interference and the dilution of the case. Her concerns seem to echo louder now as the NIA, for the first time since taking over the case from Maharashtra ATS, appears to have acknowledged the gravity of the charges.
The Malegaon blast of September 2008 was one of the first terror incidents where right-wing Hindutva groups were named as suspects. The initial investigation by Maharashtra ATS had treated Sadhvi Pragya as a key accused, but the NIA’s subsequent reluctance to pursue her raised eyebrows.
In its fresh submission, the NIA argues that “defected witnesses cannot be considered credible, and their late retractions should not benefit the accused.”
Legal experts believe this reversal could be seen as an effort to correct the course, especially after years of allegations of bias and mishandling.
“The sudden change in NIA’s stand is telling. It may be late, but justice for the victims should not be further delayed,” said senior advocate and human rights defender Aslam Shaikh.
Critics, however, view the timing with caution. “It’s ironic that the NIA, which once vouched for the innocence of Sadhvi Pragya, is now citing UAPA for the death penalty. This raises serious questions about the credibility and consistency of investigative agencies under political pressure,” said political analyst Arfa Khanum.
The victims’ families, meanwhile, continue to hope for justice. “We lost our loved ones. All we ask is justice. We hope the court gives the punishment they deserve,” said Abdul Rahman, a relative of one of the victims.
