Today, On 6th August, The Supreme Court dismissed Sameer Kulkarni’s appeal challenging the validity of the sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Malegaon blast case. The court found no grounds to interfere with the existing judgement. Kulkarni, accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast, had sought to question the legal grounds of the sanction.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today dismissed Sameer Sharad Kulkarni‘s petition challenging the trial proceedings before the Special National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai for the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blast Case.
Kulkarni argued that the trial lacked a valid sanction from the competent authority under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA‘).
Read Also: Malegaon Blast Case: Court Cancels Warrant Against BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur
The bench, comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, stated,
“We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan represented Kulkarni, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the State.
Diwan argued,
“Our respectful submission is that the trial, as far as UAPA qua me is concerned, ought not to proceed, and if they fail to produce the sanction here before this Court prima facie, then some detailed arguments can be made elsewhere. But today, at least produce the sanction, no sanction is forthcoming.”
Diwan cited Section 45 of the UAPA, which addresses the cognizance of offences, and emphasized the necessity of a sanction from the Central Government, given that the matter was handled by the NIA.
He contended,
“Once the matter shifts to NIA, in our respectful submission there ought to be a sanction by the Central Govt. So there is a twin requirement under sub-section 2 and sub-section 1. This is the long and short of my respectful submission as far as the trial is concerned I should not be vexed as far the trial is concerned on this particular issue because you have an opportunity here to produce it (Sanction).But if there is no sanction either under 45 or indeed under 45(2), this petition deserves to be allowed.”
Justice Kumar queried about the identities of PW-304 and 310, to which Diwan replied,
“They are the sanctioning authority.”
Justice Kumar noted,
“So they have already tendered their evidence. Can it be evaluated at this stage?”
Diwan responded,
“No, but they must produce it over here. They have not produced anything. That is my whole case.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the case.
On April 30, 2024, the Supreme Court paused the trial proceedings before the Special Court. Kulkarni’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenged the Bombay High Court‘s order, which dismissed his appeal regarding the trial court’s competence and the absence of a valid sanction under the UAPA.
The SLP argued that the proceedings were null and void without jurisdiction, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in November 2023, requested a response from the State of Maharashtra concerning the SLP.
In September 2008, a bomb exploded on a motorcycle in Malegaon, Maharashtra, killing six people and injuring 101.
Kulkarni arrested for alleged offences under various sections of the UAPA, Indian Penal Code, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The SLP highlighted that the NIA took over the investigation on April 1, 2011, but filed the chargesheet without the necessary Central Government sanction as required by Section 45(2) of the UAPA. It also noted that the trial was being conducted by a state-established court, rather than a Central Government-established court as per Section 11 of the NIA Act.
In December 2021, a witness in the case claimed that Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad had coerced him to implicate Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and four RSS leaders. Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh, then Additional Commissioner of the ATS, his statement recorded during the ATS’s initial investigation before the NIA took over.