IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

26/11 Attacks: Looking into the Legal Questions (English version)

  • Saroj Kumar Rath


    (Research Associate, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan)

Registered author(s):

    During the 26/11 Mumbai attack Ajmal Kasab was intercepted alive by the Mumbai police and the capture of a foreign terrorist led to an intricate legal battle as Mumbai police filed an 11,280 page chargesheet. The FBI filed four Chargesheets in the same case in a US court. The investigative mechanism adopted by the US and India for 26/11 attacks case inspire different degree of confidence. As for the terrorist crime, much is said for its prevention, and even the Afghan War against Taliban is said to be future security of the US and the world. But punishment without fail is very much important for prevention. The legal trial of the Mumbai case is different as legal structure of counts of indictment of such a crime which are thought to be applied in ordinary crime which occur in ordinary life, does not appropriately reflect actual social reality of the crime, of it's gravity, of it's structural whole, of each criminal's role. How far India’s and US’ investigation in the Mumbai attacks case establishes the design, plan and purpose of the crime? Is the post crime legal procedure of India and the US is deterrence for terror attack or otherwise? The article examines these questions both theoretically and empirically, with specific analysis of the chargesheet filed by the Mumbai police and FBI. Theoretically I identify various aspects – legal infrastructure, forensic data, electronic interception, intelligence input and conventional method of investigation – and hypothesized that there are different level of conviction for the same crime in both these countries.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Published by Expert Projects and indexed by Lumen Department of Economics on Behalf on Social Research Reports in its journal Social Research Reports.

    Volume (Year): 9 (2010)
    Issue (Month): (March)
    Pages: 3-36

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:lum:rev6rl:v:9:y:2010:i::p:3-36
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lum:rev6rl:v:9:y:2010:i::p:3-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Morariu Irina)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.