For this article:

25 Dec 2025·Source: The Indian Express
3 min
Polity & GovernancePolity & GovernancePolity & GovernanceNEWS

Delhi Court Acquits Alleged IM Operatives, Citing Lack of Evidence

Delhi court acquits alleged IM operatives Abdul Subhan Qureshi and Ariz Khan due to insufficient evidence.

Delhi Court Acquits Alleged IM Operatives, Citing Lack of Evidence

Photo by Bimo Luki

A Delhi court has acquitted Abdul Subhan Qureshi, an alleged key Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative linked to the 2006 Mumbai and 2008 Gujarat blasts, and his associate Ariz Khan, in a case alleging conspiracy to revive IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). The court found "no admissible material on record" to prove their membership in banned outfits or their involvement in a conspiracy against India's sovereignty and security.

Qureshi was arrested in 2018 from East Delhi, while Khan was apprehended from the India-Nepal border in 2018 after reportedly fleeing the country post-2008 Batla House encounter. This judgment underscores the critical importance of evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving anti-terror laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and highlights judicial scrutiny of such investigations.

मुख्य तथ्य

1.

Delhi court acquitted Abdul Subhan Qureshi and Ariz Khan

2.

Accused of being IM operatives and conspiracy to revive IM/SIMI

3.

Court found 'no admissible material on record'

4.

Case registered under UAPA (Section 18) and 120B IPC

5.

Qureshi arrested in 2018 from Ghazipur, Delhi

6.

Khan arrested in 2018 from India-Nepal border

UPSC परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण

1.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Provisions, amendments, challenges, and judicial interpretation.

2.

Criminal Justice System: Role of judiciary, evidence law, burden of proof, fair trial.

3.

Internal Security: Counter-terrorism strategies, challenges in investigating terror cases, role of intelligence agencies.

4.

Fundamental Rights: Right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), presumption of innocence, due process.

5.

Separation of Powers: Judicial scrutiny of executive actions (investigations and arrests).

दृश्य सामग्री

Geographical Context: IM Operatives Case & Related Incidents

This map illustrates the key locations mentioned in the news story, highlighting the geographical spread of alleged terror activities and the judicial process. It shows the nexus of terror incidents and the reach of law enforcement.

Loading interactive map...

📍Delhi📍Mumbai📍Ahmedabad, Gujarat📍India-Nepal Border

Timeline of Key Events: IM Operatives Case & Anti-Terror Legislation

This timeline contextualizes the recent acquittal by tracing the history of related terror incidents, legislative changes in anti-terror laws, and the sequence of arrests and judicial proceedings.

The evolution of India's anti-terror legal framework (UAPA) has been significantly shaped by major terror incidents. This case, spanning nearly two decades from alleged incidents to acquittal, highlights the long and complex nature of anti-terror investigations and the critical role of judicial scrutiny.

  • 1967Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) enacted.
  • 2004UAPA amended to include provisions against terrorist acts, replacing POTA.
  • 2006Mumbai Train Blasts (Alleged link to IM operatives).
  • 2008Gujarat Blasts (Alleged link to IM operatives).
  • 2008Batla House Encounter (Ariz Khan reportedly fled post-encounter).
  • 2008UAPA further amended post-Mumbai attacks, strengthening anti-terror provisions.
  • 2018Abdul Subhan Qureshi arrested from East Delhi.
  • 2018Ariz Khan apprehended from India-Nepal border.
  • 2019UAPA amended to allow designation of individuals as terrorists.
  • 2025Delhi Court acquits Qureshi and Khan, citing lack of evidence.
और जानकारी

पृष्ठभूमि

India has a history of enacting stringent anti-terror laws to combat internal security threats, evolving from TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) and POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). These laws grant significant powers to law enforcement agencies but have often faced criticism regarding potential misuse and impact on civil liberties. The judicial system plays a crucial role in balancing national security imperatives with the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence.

नवीनतम घटनाक्रम

A Delhi court recently acquitted two alleged Indian Mujahideen (IM) operatives, Abdul Subhan Qureshi and Ariz Khan, in a conspiracy case, citing 'no admissible material on record' to prove their membership in banned outfits or involvement in a conspiracy against India. This judgment highlights the judiciary's emphasis on concrete evidence in anti-terror cases, even under stringent laws like UAPA, and underscores the importance of robust investigation and evidence collection by agencies.

बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in India: 1. It allows the Central Government to designate an individual as a terrorist. 2. The Act applies only to Indian citizens and not to foreign nationals involved in unlawful activities against India. 3. Under UAPA, the burden of proof to establish innocence generally lies with the accused. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

उत्तर देखें

सही उत्तर: B

Statement 1 is correct. The UAPA (Amendment) Act, 2019, empowered the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists. Statement 2 is incorrect. UAPA applies to both Indian citizens and foreign nationals, and even to acts committed outside India if they are against India's interests. Statement 3 is correct. A significant criticism of UAPA is that it often shifts the burden of proof to the accused, making bail difficult and prolonged detention common, especially in cases where the prosecution claims possession of incriminating material.

2. In the context of India's internal security, which of the following statements about banned organizations is/are correct? 1. The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was first banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 2. The Indian Mujahideen (IM) is primarily known for its operations within India and has no known international affiliations. 3. A ban on an organization under UAPA is subject to review by a Tribunal constituted by the Central Government. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

उत्तर देखें

सही उत्तर: D

Statement 1 is incorrect. SIMI was initially banned in 2001 under the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), which later became POTA, and subsequently continued under UAPA after POTA's repeal. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Indian Mujahideen (IM) is believed to have strong links with international terror groups, particularly Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), and is considered a proxy for Pakistan-based groups. Statement 3 is correct. Section 4 of UAPA mandates that every notification declaring an association as unlawful must be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication within 30 days. The Tribunal's order is binding.

3. Which of the following principles is most directly underscored by the Delhi court's acquittal of alleged terror operatives due to 'no admissible material on record'?

उत्तर देखें

सही उत्तर: C

The court's decision to acquit due to lack of admissible evidence directly reinforces the fundamental principles of 'due process' and 'presumption of innocence'. In a criminal justice system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and conviction requires concrete, admissible evidence. Options A and D are contrary to these principles. Option B is incorrect as the judiciary acts as a check on executive power.

GKSolverआज की खबरें