While confirming the death sentence for Mohammed Ajmal Kasab for his involvement in the November 2008 terror strikes, the Supreme Court has observed the plan was to incite communal tensions in India.

While awarding the death sentence to Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the lone gunman caught for his involvement in the 26 November 2008 Mumbai terror strikes, a Supreme Court bench made observations on the plan to incite communal violence in India, media coverage of the issue and the two other accused in the case.

Here are some of the observations made by the Supreme Court bench of justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad:

On blame for Kasab's actions falling on Indian Muslims

If the appellant (Kasab) had not been caught alive and the investigating agencies had not been able to unravel the conspiracy fully and in all its devious ways, the terrorists might have passed (off) as Indian Muslims and that would have led to devastating short-term and equally debilitating long-term consequences.

It would have caused… distrust and suspicion between communities and disturbed the communal peace and harmony of the country. It is not impossible that conflagrations would have erupted in different parts of the country, which the governments would have found difficult to contain.”

In this regard, the selection of the CST (Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) as one of the targets for carnage assumes great importance. Trains leave for many parts of the country from the CST. Thus, as news of the carnage spread across the country through the media, travellers would start arriving in different parts of the country, some having lost their near and dear ones at CST, some with a wounded companion and others shell-shocked by the experience of a terrorist attack on the railway station. Their first-hand, eyewitness accounts of the carnage, added to reports in the print media and visuals in the electronic media, could be highly inflammatory and could easily evoke communal violence that would be difficult to contain.

(The deception) was equally distressing for being so deeply untruthful. Indian Muslims may have a long list of grievances against the establishment. Some of the grievances may be fanciful, some may be of their own making and some may be substantive. Nevertheless, no Indian Muslim would even think of venting his grievance like an animal, killing, maiming and wounding innocent people, his own countrymen. This is because he is not only loyal to his faith and community but equally loves his country and fellow countrymen.

On the media coverage of 26/11

Any attempt to justify the conduct of the TV channels by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation. The freedom of speech and expression, like all other freedoms

under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions.

An action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression.

It is beyond doubt that the way their (security forces) operations were freely shown made the task of the security forces not only exceedingly difficult but also dangerous and risky.

It is in such extreme cases that the credibility of an institution is tested. The coverage of the Mumbai terror attack by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within.

The shots and visuals that were shown live by the TV channels could have also been shown after all the terrorists were neutralised and the security operations were over. But, in that case the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels.

On giving Kasab the death penalty

Now, as long as the death penalty remains on the statute book as punishment for certain offences, including “waging war” and murder, it logically follows that there must be some cases, howsoever rare or one in a million, that would call for inflicting that penalty (death penalty). That being the position we fail to see what case would attract the death penalty, if not the case of the appellant.

To hold back the death penalty in this case would amount to obdurately declaring that this Court rejects death as lawful penalty even though it is on the statute book and held valid by Constitutional benches of this Court.

We are thus left with no option but to hold that in the facts of the case the death penalty is the only sentence that can be given to the appellant.

On Kasab's personality

We are unable to accept the submission that the appellant (Kasab) was a mere tool in the hands of the Lashkar-e-Taiba. He joined the Lashkar-e-Taiba around December 2007 and continued as its member till the end, despite a number of opportunities to leave it. This shows his clear and unmistakable intention to be a part of the organisation and participate in its designs.

It is true that he is not educated but he is a very good and quick learner, has a tough mind and strong determination. He is also quite clever and shrewd.

Even after his arrest, he regarded himself as a 'watan parast,' a patriotic Pakistani at war with this country. Where is the question of his being brain-washed or acting under remote control? We completely disagree that the appellant was acting like an automaton. During the past months while we lived through this case, we have been able to make a fair assessment of the appellant’s personality.

Unfortunately, he is wholly remorseless and any feeling of pity is unknown to him. He kills without the slightest twinge of conscience.

On acquitting two other accused in the case Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed

The trial court and the High Court have considered the evidences relating to these two accused in far greater detail. Both the courts have analysed the prosecution evidence in regard to the two accused at great length and have given very good reasons to hold the prosecution evidence unworthy of reliance to hold such grave charges against the two accused.

We are in full agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial court and the High Court for acquitting the two accused of all the charges.

Read the full judgement here