Stressing that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial is “absolutely non-negotiable” even in prosecutions involving terrorism and mass casualties, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the conviction and death sentence of Abdul Hameed in the 1996 Samleti bus bomb blast case, holding that a conviction carrying capital punishment cannot rest on proceedings where the accused was effectively left to defend himself without legal representation.
Fourteen people were killed and 37 injured in the blast on a bus on the Jaipur-Agra Highway on May 22, 1996. The blast came a day after the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast in Delhi, in which 13 people were killed. The Supreme Court judgment leaves the case without any convicted accused for the present, with Hameed facing a fresh trial while all other accused stand acquitted.
In a 183-page judgment, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta held that Hameed, who has spent nearly three decades behind bars and remained under the shadow of the death penalty for almost 12 years, was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because he had no meaningful legal assistance when the prosecution examined its witnesses.
“The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial is absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of practical convenience. The administration of criminal justice is founded not merely upon the objective of securing convictions but equally upon the assurance that every conviction is preceded by a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable,” held the bench.
{{/usCountry}}“The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial is absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of practical convenience. The administration of criminal justice is founded not merely upon the objective of securing convictions but equally upon the assurance that every conviction is preceded by a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable,” held the bench.
{{/usCountry}}Balancing the rights of the accused with society’s interest in prosecuting grave offences, the court rejected both the options of affirming the conviction despite the flawed trial and acquitting Hameed outright because of the procedural defect. Instead, it ordered a de novo trial, holding that this alone would cure the constitutional infirmity while allowing the prosecution to prove its case through a legally compliant process.
The court requested the Rajasthan High Court’s acting chief justice to assign the retrial to a special court in Jaipur headed by a judicial officer with at least seven years’ experience in conducting sessions trials and directed the proceedings to be concluded within one year. It further ordered that Hameed be represented either by a lawyer of his choice or, if he is unable to engage one, by two experienced defence lawyers appointed through the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. All prosecution witnesses are to be recalled so that Hameed gets a “full and effective opportunity” to cross-examine them.
The bench clarified that its decision was confined to procedural fairness and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
“The issue is not one of mere procedural irregularity; it goes to the very legitimacy of the trial and the resultant conviction,” noted the court, adding that the denial of effective legal assistance cast “a serious doubt” on whether the proceedings satisfied the minimum constitutional requirements under Articles 21 and 22.
The judgment followed an unusual exercise undertaken by the Supreme Court during the hearing. After Hameed claimed through counsel that he had remained unrepresented throughout the trial, the bench directed that he be produced through video conferencing from Jaipur Central Jail. During the interaction in March 2025, Hameed categorically stated that no advocate had represented him during the trial, that he had not engaged any private lawyer and that no legal aid counsel had ever been appointed for him. The state was unable to point to any record showing that a legal aid lawyer or amicus curiae had been provided, or that Hameed had knowingly waived his right to counsel.
Examining the trial record, the court found that the order sheets did not show Hameed being represented by counsel at any stage and that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses had been conducted by the accused himself despite the prosecution relying upon identification evidence, forensic material, disclosure statements and complex documentary evidence in a case carrying the death penalty. “The right of an accused to be defended by a legal practitioner is not an empty ritual... The requirement is one of real and meaningful representation,” the bench said.
The court also noted that the Rajasthan High Court had itself earlier found infirmities in the sentencing proceedings. In 2015, it remanded the matter because the death sentence had been imposed on the very day of conviction without any defence counsel being present to present mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court said this lent “substantial weight” to Hameed’s grievance that the absence of legal representation had affected the trial as a whole.
The case relates to the May 22, 1996 bomb blast aboard a Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bus travelling from Agra to Bikaner through Dausa district and near Samleti village, in which 14 passengers were killed and 37 injured.
Apart from ordering Hameed’s retrial, the Supreme Court acquitted co-accused Pappu alias Salim, who had been serving a life sentence, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also dismissed Rajasthan government’s appeals against the acquittal of six other accused, thereby affirming the high court’s decision in their favour.
With Hameed’s conviction having been set aside and a fresh trial ordered, no conviction presently survives in the 1996 Samleti bus blast case.