Special PP for NIA Rohini Salian points to lapses in case handling: procedural inconsistencies and alleged behind-the-scenes pressure
Rohini Salian, former special public prosecutor
Rohini Salian, former chief public prosecutor of Maharashtra and the special public prosecutor for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), has pointed to serious lapses in how the 2008 Malegaon blast case was handled, from legal/procedural inconsistencies to the alleged behind-the-scenes pressure, over time, terming the outcome of the case a collective failure of the people.
According to Salian, what began as a solid investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) gradually fell apart, not because of the weak evidence but due to an alleged breakdown of institutional/political will and integrity. Asked to elaborate, Salian stated the following.
1. Legal continuity undermined
Salian pointed out that the Maharashtra ATS had originally built a strong prosecutorial foundation. The ATS filed its charge sheet in the case within 90 days, meeting the legal deadline to avoid bail for the accused. Witness statements and confessions were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which are considered more reliable as they are recorded before a magistrate.
The trial court, Bombay High Court, and even the Supreme Court upheld the evidence at preliminary stages, and for a long time, the accused arrested in the case had to be behind bars, and their initial plea for bail was rejected.
Legal concern: When the case was transferred to the NIA in 2011, the agency chose to reinvestigate rather than proceed with the case on the strength of the already-filed charge sheet. This created a parallel evidentiary trail, diluting the legal consistency of the case and introducing discrepancies. Interestingly, Salian had vetted the ATS charge sheet. Reinvestigation, unless court-ordered, can often appear as an attempt to reshape the case rather than pursue it, claimed Salian.
2. Prosecutorial interference
Salian’s most serious allegation is that in 2017, she was informally asked to “go slow” — a clear signal of political interference. As a public prosecutor, her role was to represent the state impartially, not to follow political cues. Legal context: The independence of public prosecutors is a key part of the criminal justice system. Their job is not to secure convictions at all costs, but to present the case fairly and in the interest of justice.
Asking a prosecutor to “go slow” without any judicial order violates Article 21 (right to fair trial) and Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution, pointed out Salian. “The Supreme Court has warned in multiple judgments, such as Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar, 1987, against undue influence over prosecutorial discretion,” said Salian.
3. Legal framing
According to Salian, the original case was registered by ATS and the accused were arrested under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and not the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The NIA, after taking over the investigation, seems to have filed a subsequent charge sheet in the case under UAPA.
Asked to elaborate, Salian said, MCOCA requires specific evidence of organised crime and continuity of criminal acts. UAPA allows more latitude for the state, viz, extended detention, reversal of burden of proof, and stricter bail provisions.
Legal Issue: Changing the legal framework mid-way without clear justification raises suspicion of motivated legal engineering, potentially to alter the narrative or dilute prosecutorial intensity, said Salian.
4. Impact on justice delivery
Salian further added, “When law enforcement works with ulterior motives to please people in power, derailment of justice is no surprise,” raising concerns about institutional accountability.
Asked to elaborate, Salian raised multiple red flags —
Separation of powers: When the political executive interferes in judicial processes.
Misuse of prosecutorial discretion: When prosecutors are removed, slowed, or replaced due to non-alignment with political interests.
Erosion of public trust: Especially in sensitive communal or terror cases where both victims and accused belong to vulnerable communities.
This is not merely a procedural lapse — it is a constitutional failure, according to her.
5. Collective responsibility
Salian invokes the Preamble of the Constitution “We, the People” — suggesting that public apathy, institutional silence, and political expediency have contributed to “the miscarriage of justice”. “It is a call to democratic conscience, accountability is not only judicial, but the public at large – we, the people – and the Malegaon judgment is the collective failure of the people, to get justice to the victims of crime and terror,” she said.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
