Nailing terrorists: Lessons learnt from the special court’s sentencing of Abu Jundal

It is interesting that Abu Jundal and six others, accused in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case, have been convicted and given a life sentence by a MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) court. Interestingly, the judge had refused the prosecution’s claim to try them under MCOCA, but they were punished under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act, the Explosives Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Special court judge S L Anekar had accepted the prosecution’s argument that Jundal, a Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operative, had sourced 43 kg of RDX, 10 AK-47 assault rifles, 3,200 live cartridges, and 50 hand grenades from Pakistan with the intention of creating terror and plotting to assassinate the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Pravin Togadia for the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the state.

Jundal has also been accused of being part of the terror attack in Mumbai of November 26, 2008. But the sentencing was confined to their role in smuggling in the arms with the intention of creating terror. The anti-terror squad (ATS) which had intercepted and confiscated the arms near Aurangabad has pressed for maximum charges under MCOCA and stringent sentencing. It had done its job but the judge did not buy the whole of the prosecution’s contention.

The positive fallout of this case is that Indian courts are dealing with terror cases firmly and fairly, and they are not being taken in by the hysterical and loose talk about terrorism in general in the public sphere. This is indeed the way to handle the challenge of terrorism -- to deal with it in the legal framework, give a fair chance to the accused to present their case. After finding them guilty, the judge heard each one of the pleas of the accused for lenient sentencing. Apparently, Abu Jundal, who is from Beed district in Maharashtra, had pleaded that his sister’s marriage had broken up because of his case. It is something which does not count as an extenuating ground.

What counts is that the system provides for legal remedies to all. This establishes the norm that even a terror accused has access to all the legally established options. In the foggy sphere of popular opinion generated by an overexcited media a person of terrorism has no right for fair treatment under law. Fortunately, the judicial system has kept itself reasonably above public hysteria though there have been lapses in some instances, where the courts felt that punishing a terrorist was needed to assuage public indignation and anger. 

It is necessary to fight terrorism in a strong fashion by striking hard at the terrorists. But when terrorists are captured and put on trial, it becomes the responsibility of the courts to give a fair hearing to the accused, even when they are charged for anti-national activities. Patriotic biases cannot be allowed to colour the perception in these cases. It is a matter of great interest that Judge Anekar had not only refused to try Jundal and other accused under the stringent MCOCA, but he had also acquitted eight of the 22 accused. It implies that the prosecution had brought to trial people against whom there is evidence of terrorist activities. India will then have to continue to walk the tightrope, balancing tough responses to terrorism with a fair deal to those who have been brought to trial for acts of terrorism.