INDIA — A special Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court in Ahmedabad, India, has acquitted three Muslim men linked to the 2002 Akshardham temple attack case, ruling there was no fresh evidence against them beyond material previously rejected by India’s Supreme Court, according to multiple reports. (Source – Deccan Herald, January 28, 2026; The Quint, January 26, 2026; Muslim Network TV, January 26, 2026)

The three men were identified in reports as Abdul Rashid Suleman Ajmeri, Muhammad Farooq Muhammad Hafiz Shaikh, and Muhammad Yasin, also reported as Yasin Bhatt. Coverage said the court found the prosecution lacked independent material connecting them to the attack and that continuing the case was not sustainable. (Source – Deccan Herald, January 28, 2026; The Quint, January 26, 2026; Maktoob Media, January 26, 2026)

The Akshardham attack took place in September 2002 at the Swaminarayan Akshardham complex in Gujarat, killing dozens and injuring many more, and was among India’s most high-profile terror cases of that period. Indian media and legal records show that in 2014, the Supreme Court overturned convictions in the case and sharply criticized investigative lapses, acquitting all those then convicted under POTA. (Source – Indian Kanoon, May 16, 2014; University of Oxford Blavatnik School of Government, May 6, 2016)

Reporting on the latest ruling said two of the acquitted men were working in Saudi Arabia at the time of the 2002 attack and were later declared absconders, before being arrested in 2019 after returning to Ahmedabad. The decision has reignited debate among Muslims and rights advocates about how terror-era laws and policing can produce long pre-trial incarceration even when courts later find cases unsupported by evidence. (Source – Muslim Network TV, January 26, 2026; Deccan Herald, January 28, 2026; The Quint, January 26, 2026)

POTA legacy and ongoing concerns under later security laws

POTA was repealed in 2004 after wide public controversy and allegations of misuse, including concerns that Muslim men were disproportionately swept into terror investigations and then faced prolonged trials. While the law ended, legal analysts and civil liberties groups have argued that similar coercive dynamics continue under later frameworks, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which permits extended detention timelines in certain circumstances. (Source – PRS Legislative Research, 2004; Ministry of Home Affairs India, 1967; Bar and Bench, December 19, 2025)

In the Akshardham case, the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment remains central to public understanding of why later prosecutions tied to the same fact pattern face scrutiny, with the court emphasizing that serious terrorism cases require credible, careful investigation rather than evidence that cannot stand legal testing. The Ahmedabad POTA court’s reasoning, as reported, leaned on that earlier finding to conclude there was no new basis to keep the three men on trial. (Source – Indian Kanoon, May 16, 2014; Deccan Herald, January 28, 2026; The Quint, January 26, 2026)

For many Muslim families, the human cost of such cases is measured not only in prison time but in lasting social stigma, lost employment, disrupted education, and the strain of repeated court appearances even after acquittal. Muslim organizations that provide legal aid say their work increasingly includes rebuilding lives after release, not just securing verdicts. (Source – Muslim Network TV, January 26, 2026)

The broader debate over India’s counter-terror system has remained active in recent years amid continued arrests under UAPA and repeated legal disputes over lengthy incarceration without trial. International reporting in recent weeks has highlighted prominent UAPA cases where accused individuals have spent years in custody while courts weigh bail standards under special statutes. (Source – Associated Press, January 2026)

Islamic and Ethical Context

For Muslims, justice is not only a legal demand but a moral obligation: The Quran repeatedly calls for fairness, truthful testimony, and resisting injustice even when it is socially costly. When men are jailed for years and later cleared, the pain to families and communities often lingers long after the courtroom outcome.

The Prophet (Peace be upon Him) taught that wrongdoing should be confronted without becoming unjust ourselves, and Hadith Books emphasize both accountability and restraint. The Seerah records moments when truth was defended through principled persistence, reminding Muslims to seek due process, protect community safety, and avoid collective blame—especially in emotionally charged cases tied to terrorism allegations.