2008 Ahmedabad blasts: Supreme Court refuses plea by death row convicts for VC hearing in Gujarat HC

The Supreme Court recently refused to permit video conferencing in the appeals arising from the 2008 Ahmedabad serial bomb blasts case, citing serious security concerns for judges and witnesses [Samsuddin Alias Samsu Vs. State Of Gujarat].

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that allowing private VC access is technically same as live streaming court proceedings and allowing it would impose grave security threats to the judges hearing the case.

The Court was hearing a plea by death row convicts who sought that their senior counsel be allowed to argue virtually before the Gujarat High Court, where the appeals against conviction and confirmation of death sentences are being heard. The convicts had earlier secured a temporary stay on the High Court proceedings when the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter in August.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, opposed the request, pointing to the scale and sensitivity of the case. He highlighted that the trial involved 56 deaths, 246 injuries, 6,000 exhibits and nearly eight lakh pages of record, leading to a 7,000-page conviction judgment. He stressed that the High Court had been hearing the matter daily since March 2025 before a specially constituted bench.

He warned that even a limited video link would expose protected witnesses and sitting judges to danger.

“The technology has so developed that even if there is an official blocking somebody can still enter into the system and record everything,” Mehta said.

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, representing the petitioners, argued that the request was limited and arose out of practical difficulties. She pointed out that the senior lawyer representing 23 convicts on death row was based in Mumbai and could not shift permanently to Ahmedabad for a hearing that lasted only an hour each day.

“This is an unusual prayer we are making because of unusual circumstances,” Bhat submitted.

The bench, however, underscored that the issue was not only about technical feasibility but also about the broader security environment.

Justice Sharma remarked that by seeking online access, counsel would be “exposing these people, the judges, at an international level.”

Justice Sundresh added that any such order would serve as a “triggering point,” potentially increasing the risks already assessed by security agencies.

The judges also noted that even a controlled video link could tantamount to live streaming.

“Even when a link is given it amounts to live streaming. You are exposing a judge to great threat. Just see the case he is handling,” Justice Sharma said.

The bench acknowledged the concern that defence lawyers needed adequate opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s case, especially with 23 convicts facing the death penalty. At the same time, it stressed that the proper balance lay in ensuring in-person arguments without exposing proceedings to external threats.

Justice Sundresh told Bhat that the Court would request the High Court to accommodate the Mumbai-based senior counsel’s schedule.

“Whatever happens ultimately it’ll reach here only (the Supreme Court). It’s only an appeal, it’s not a trial,” Justice Sundresh noted, while assuring that the defence would be allowed to argue fully.

In its order, the Court declined to allow video conferencing but directed that the Gujarat High Court give the concerned counsel uninterrupted time when his arguments begin, so that he can conclude without repeated travel. The bench also said that convicts in jail must continue to have access to the hearings through video facilities already provided.

“As there is a perceived threat we are not inclined to consider the request made. However… we hope and trust that the division bench will make sure that the counsel who is coming from Bombay is not inconvenienced and full hearing be given to him during his argument in person before the Court,” the order read.

The matter will now continue before the Gujarat High Court, which has been hearing the appeals and death sentence confirmations since March 2025.

By way of background, on July 26, 2008, a series of 21 coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, killing 56 people and injuring 246. The explosions, claimed by the Indian Mujahideen, targeted crowded public areas including hospitals and markets.

It went on to become one of India’s largest terror prosecutions, with nearly 80,000 documents and 1,100 witnesses forming part of the record.

In 2022, a special court convicted 49 people and sentenced 38 to death, while 11 were given life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court has since been hearing appeals against the convictions and the confirmation of death sentences.

The proceedings are being conducted before a specially constituted bench.