Cross-Border Terrorism Prosecutions With Pakistan And Iran
In the context of legal prosecution, especially in India, a number of high-profile cases have shed light on how the judiciary and law enforcement agencies handle cross-border terrorism. Below is a detailed explanation of key prosecutions involving Pakistan and Iran, with more than five cases, their legal significance, and the relevant judicial findings.
⚖️ 1. Kasab Case (Ajmal Kasab) – 26/11 Mumbai Attacks
Case Name: State of Maharashtra vs. Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab
Court: Bombay High Court and later Supreme Court
Country involved: Pakistan
Summary:
Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was one of ten terrorists who attacked Mumbai on 26 November 2008, killing 166 people.
Key Legal Points:
Kasab was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Explosives Act, Arms Act, and more.
The prosecution presented forensic evidence, CCTV footage, Kasab’s confession, and call intercepts to establish his Pakistani origin and training.
The court relied on international evidence (e.g., FBI forensic data) and testimonies of intelligence officers.
Judgment:
Kasab was convicted and sentenced to death. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. The court strongly condemned the role of Pakistan-based terrorist outfits and stated that state complicity could not be ignored.
⚖️ 2. Gurdaspur Attack (2015)
Case: NIA Investigation into the 2015 terror attack
Court: NIA Special Court
Country involved: Pakistan
Summary:
On July 27, 2015, three heavily armed terrorists attacked a police station in Dinanagar, Punjab. The attackers were later identified as Pakistani nationals affiliated with LeT.
Legal Proceedings:
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) found evidence of cross-border infiltration.
Seized GPS devices showed the route taken from Pakistan to India.
FIRs were filed under UAPA, Arms Act, and IPC (murder, terrorism, etc.).
Outcome:
All three attackers were killed, so no direct prosecution, but the case was crucial in understanding how cross-border infiltration was being orchestrated. The NIA filed a chargesheet highlighting Pakistan's role in harboring terrorists and facilitating their entry.
⚖️ 3. Pathankot Airbase Attack (2016)
Case: NIA vs. Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives
Court: NIA Special Court
Country involved: Pakistan
Summary:
On January 2, 2016, six Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists entered the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot, Punjab, and launched an attack, killing seven security personnel.
Evidence and Legal Aspects:
Intercepts of phone calls between attackers and their handlers in Pakistan.
Recovery of Pakistani food packets, currency, and phone numbers.
The attackers were eventually killed, but the NIA filed charges against Masood Azhar and others in absentia.
Legal Complexity:
India allowed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) from Pakistan to visit the attack site, but cooperation did not yield much progress.
Judicial Finding:
The court recognized Pakistan's non-cooperation as a hurdle and emphasized international collaboration in terrorism cases.
⚖️ 4. Delhi Serial Blasts Case (2005)
Case Name: State vs Tariq Ahmed Dar
Court: Delhi Sessions Court and later Delhi High Court
Country involved: Pakistan (via Lashkar-e-Taiba)
Summary:
Tariq Ahmed Dar was arrested for masterminding the Delhi serial blasts in October 2005, which killed over 60 people.
Legal Findings:
Dar was accused of being an LeT operative with links in Pakistan.
Although he was acquitted of direct involvement in the bombings, he was convicted under UAPA for links to a banned terrorist organization.
Significance:
The case illustrated difficulties in proving direct involvement without physical evidence from across the border, even when ideological and organizational ties were clear.
⚖️ 5. Indian Mujahideen Cases (Yasin Bhatkal)
Case: NIA vs. Yasin Bhatkal and others
Court: NIA Special Court, Patna and Hyderabad
Countries involved: Pakistan and Iran (for logistics and safe passage)
Summary:
Yasin Bhatkal, a key founder of Indian Mujahideen, was involved in multiple bombings, including the 2010 German Bakery blast and 2013 Hyderabad blasts.
Legal Aspects:
Bhatkal had reportedly received training and logistical support in Pakistan.
There were reports (from intelligence sources) of movement through Iran-Afghanistan route before being captured near Nepal border.
Charges were framed under IPC, UAPA, Explosives Act, and Arms Act.
Verdict:
He was sentenced to death in 2016 for the Dilsukhnagar blasts and multiple life imprisonments in other cases.
⚖️ 6. Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India vs. Pakistan)
Case: International Court of Justice (ICJ), 2017–2019
Country involved: Iran (alleged arrest location), Pakistan (custody)
Summary:
Kulbhushan Jadhav, a retired Indian Navy officer, was arrested by Pakistan in 2016, allegedly from Balochistan. India maintained that he was abducted from Iran.
Legal Developments:
Tried by a military court in Pakistan and sentenced to death.
India approached the ICJ, citing violation of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The ICJ ordered Pakistan to grant consular access and review the conviction.
Significance:
A rare case involving both Iran and Pakistan.
It showcased diplomatic and legal warfare over cross-border intelligence and espionage allegations.
Though not a terrorism prosecution in the Indian judiciary, it is crucial in the broader cross-border legal conflict context.
⚖️ 7. Jaipur Blasts Case (2008)
Case: State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Mujahideen Operatives
Court: Special Court, Jaipur
Countries involved: Pakistan (training) and Iran (transit)
Summary:
Serial blasts rocked Jaipur on May 13, 2008, killing 71 people. Investigations pointed toward Indian Mujahideen, with training and coordination from Pakistan.
Legal Proceedings:
Arrested accused confessed to receiving training in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
Some traveled via Iran and the Gulf to reach terror camps.
Convicted under IPC, UAPA, and Explosives Act.
Verdict:
Several accused were sentenced to death. The court acknowledged foreign training and planning as aggravating factors.
Common Legal Challenges in Cross-Border Terrorism Cases
Lack of Extradition Treaties – India has no extradition treaty with Pakistan, making it nearly impossible to bring fugitives to trial.
Evidence Collection – Judicial processes are hampered by the inability to collect evidence from foreign soil.
State Support or Denial – Alleged involvement or denial by the accused country (especially Pakistan) limits cooperation.
International Jurisdiction Limits – India often relies on diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than international legal enforcement.
Trial in Absentia – Many accused remain abroad, and are prosecuted in absentia (e.g., Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed).
Conclusion
India’s legal framework, especially under UAPA, allows prosecution of individuals for terrorism, even when the planning or support originates abroad. The judiciary has handled such cases with a mix of domestic laws, international cooperation, and intelligence evidence.
Despite strong prosecution, the lack of cross-border legal cooperation, especially with Pakistan, remains a serious bottleneck. Iran's role, though less direct, features in several cases involving transit routes and covert operations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments