It would be lethally incendiary to delve into religion- linked terrorism during the election season. Nor can any comfort be drawn by drawing parallels between the disgraceful conduct of the Delhi Police during the massacre of the Sikh community in November 1984 and the National Investigation Agency’s mishandling of the case over the death of 68 people in the blast in the Samjhauta Express in 2007. Both remain disturbing. Yet every citizen, who has reposed faith and trust in the rule of law, will be quivering over the observations of the Special NIA court in Panchkula that only a few days back ordered the acquittal of all the accused in the “bombing” of the train that took a toll heavier than the suicide car-bomber in Pulwama.

The Special Judge Jagdeep Singh lamented his regret at the court having “to conclude this judgment with deep pain and anguish as a dastardly act of violence remained unpunished for want of credible and admissible evidence.” Even worse, there are no signs of the NIA appealing to a higher court. Maybe the families of the CRPF jawans killed at Pulwama derive a modicum of satisfaction from the aerial strike at Balakot ~ if one set of killings can ever “offset” another ~ but there isn’t even that closure available to those affected by the Panchkula ruling.

Pointing to “gaping holes in the prosecution evidence and an act of terrorism has remained unsolved,” Mr Jagdeep Singh flayed the investigating agencies for using terms like “Muslim terror and Hindu fundamentalism etc to brand criminal( s) as acts of a particular religion, caste or community”. “Terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence.” And in a message that should resonate across the political spectrum he reminded that “a court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perception or the political discourse of the day and ultimately it has to appreciate the evidence on record.” The court noted that there was “not an iota of evidence… the entire prosecution is found to have been built on inadmissible evidence and in the shape of disclosure statements of the accused”. It also drew attention to the several witnesses who (curiously?) retracted from the statements on which the initial case was built, and called for a more effective witness protection programme. The short point being that investigations were fine-tuned in accordance with extraneous priorities, and the NIA had followed the trend set by other investigative agencies. Where does that leave the common man? In the lurch? Unless the Supreme Court takes suo motu action in the light of the incisive observations of the Special NIA Judge. Sixty-eight unpunished killings must be a blot on the rule of law in this country.