Pragya Thakur Declares Divine Justice After Malegaon Blast Acquittal, Claims Vindication For Hindutva

Former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur delivered an emotionally charged response following her acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, declaring that divine justice would prevail against those who had dishonored the saffron flag during her prolonged legal ordeal.

Speaking tearfully to Special Judge AK Lahoti after seventeen years of legal proceedings, Thakur recounted the extensive humiliation and repeated struggles she endured while fighting to clear her reputation. Courtroom observers noted her visible distress as she addressed the judge, reflecting on years of being branded as tainted despite maintaining her innocence throughout the protracted case.

In a defiant proclamation following the verdict, Thakur characterized the acquittal as a triumph for Hindu ideology, stating that saffron and Hindutva had emerged victorious while allegations of "saffron terrorism" had been definitively disproven. She issued a stern warning that divine punishment would befall those responsible for insulting the bhagwa, demonstrating her continued anger over the treatment she received during the investigation and trial.

Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, who was also acquitted alongside Thakur, made equally passionate remarks in court emphasizing his unwavering patriotism. The military officer described himself as an unconditional lover of the nation while characterizing himself as a victim of what he termed "mentally ill people." Purohit expressed his belief that certain individuals had misused their authority, forcing him and others to endure unjust treatment throughout the legal process.

The special NIA court's acquittal of all seven accused individuals concluded nearly two decades of legal proceedings stemming from the blast that claimed six lives. Judge Lahoti emphasized that the prosecution had failed to present reliable and cogent evidence against any of the defendants, noting significant investigative loopholes that warranted extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The court made philosophical observations about terrorism transcending religious boundaries while maintaining that convictions cannot be based on mere perceptions without substantial evidence. This judicial stance effectively dismantled the prosecution's case that had linked the accused to alleged Hindu extremist activities in the Maharashtra town.