The Supreme Court has refused video conferencing in the Ahmedabad blasts appeals, citing grave security risks to judges and witnesses. The Court directed the Gujarat HC to ensure uninterrupted in-person arguments for defence counsel. New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has refused to allow video conferencing in the appeals connected to the 2008 Ahmedabad serial bomb blasts case, saying that such a step could create serious security risks for judges and witnesses. The case is being closely followed because of the large number of people sentenced to death. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma explained that giving private video conferencing access would, in practice, be no different from live streaming court proceedings. The judges said that such an arrangement could bring “grave security threats” to the judges hearing the case.
 |
| Justices MM Sundresh |
 |
| Justice Satish Chandra Sharma |
The matter reached the Supreme Court after death row convicts asked that their senior counsel be allowed to argue virtually before the Gujarat High Court, where the appeals against their conviction and the confirmation of death sentences are presently being heard. Earlier, the convicts had managed to get a temporary stay on the High Court’s hearings when the Supreme Court issued notice in August. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking for the State of Gujarat, strongly opposed this request. He told the Court that the trial had been one of the biggest in the country, pointing out that it dealt with 56 deaths, 246 injuries, 6,000 exhibits and nearly eight lakh pages of record, and had resulted in a 7,000-page conviction judgment.
He also stressed that since March 2025, the Gujarat High Court had been hearing the case daily before a special bench. Mehta further warned the Court that even a limited video link could expose protected witnesses and judges to danger. He said: “The technology has so developed that even if there is an official blocking somebody can still enter into the system and record everything.” On the other side, Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the request was not general but specific and arose out of practical difficulties. She explained that the senior lawyer representing 23 convicts on death row was based in Mumbai and it was not possible for him to shift to Ahmedabad for hearings that lasted only an hour each day. She submitted: “This is an unusual prayer we are making because of unusual circumstances.”
The bench made it clear that the issue was not only about technology but also about the broader security environment. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed: “By seeking online access, counsel would be exposing these people, the judges, at an international level.” Justice Sundresh also warned that even the smallest allowance could create new risks, saying that such an order would act as a “triggering point” and might increase the threats already assessed by security agencies. The Court noted that even a controlled video link could effectively become live streaming. Justice Sharma added: “Even when a link is given it amounts to live streaming. You are exposing a judge to great threat. Just see the case he is handling.” At the same time, the bench recognised that defence lawyers should get proper opportunity to argue, especially because 23 people are facing the death penalty. Justice Sundresh assured that the balance could be achieved by in-person hearings without exposing proceedings to outside dangers. He told Aparna Bhat that the Court would also request the High Court to consider the Mumbai-based senior counsel’s difficulties. Justice Sundresh said: “Whatever happens ultimately it’ll reach here only (the Supreme Court). It’s only an appeal, it’s not a trial.”
In its order, the Supreme Court finally rejected the plea for video conferencing. However, it directed the Gujarat High Court to give the senior counsel coming from Mumbai uninterrupted time to present his arguments so that he does not have to make repeated trips. The Court also said that the convicts in jail will continue to have video access to watch the hearings, as is already being provided. The bench recorded: “As there is a perceived threat we are not inclined to consider the request made. However… we hope and trust that the division bench will make sure that the counsel who is coming from Bombay is not inconvenienced and full hearing be given to him during his argument in person before the Court.” The matter will now continue in the Gujarat High Court, which has been hearing appeals and the confirmation of death sentences since March 2025.
The case has its roots in the Ahmedabad bomb blasts of July 26, 2008, when 21 coordinated explosions ripped through the city, killing 56 people and injuring 246. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility. Hospitals and busy market areas were among the main targets. It turned into one of India’s largest terror prosecutions, involving nearly 80,000 documents and 1,100 witnesses. In 2022, a special court convicted 49 accused. Out of them, 38 were given the death sentence and 11 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Since then, the Gujarat High Court has been handling the appeals, which are now under the supervision of a specially constituted bench.
Case Title:
Samsuddin Alias Samsu Vs. State Of Gujarat
No comments:
Post a Comment