Author: Hemant Tiwari, IME Law College, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad
ABSTRACT
The Red Fort Blast of November 10, 2025, stands as a grim reminder of the persistent threat of urban terrorism in India. This incident, involving a high-intensity Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detonated via a vehicle near the historic Red Fort (Law Vila) in Delhi, resulted in significant casualties and triggered a massive national security response. The case, currently under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), involves complex legal dimensions ranging from the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (APA) to international diplomatic ramifications. This analysis details the factual matrix, casualty statistics, security implications, government resolutions, and the ongoing judicial proceedings, while also drawing upon landmark legal precedents established in prior terror adjudication.
Factual Matrix: The Timeline of November 10, 2025
To understand the legal gravity of the offense, a reconstruction of the res gestae (facts forming part of the same transaction) is essential:
15:19 hrs (3:19 PM): CCTV footage captures a white Hyundai i20 entering the parking area adjacent to the Sunehri Masjid, near the Red Fort.
15:19 – 18:48 hrs: The vehicle, laden with explosives, remains parked. Forensic analysis later suggests the perpetrator, Dr. Umar Un Nabi, was inside, possibly awaiting a signal or specific crowd density.
18:52 hrs (6:52 PM): The vehicle exits the parking lot and merges into slow-moving traffic near the Red Fort Metro Station (Gate No. 1). The IED is detonated at a busy traffic signal.
Mechanism: The blast was triggered using a sophisticated ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) mixture, possibly accelerated with RDX. The intensity was such that it incinerated six nearby cars, two e-rickshaws, and an auto-rickshaw instantly.
How Many People Killed in Delhi Blast Case in Red Fort?
The statistical toll of the blast was catastrophic, occurring during peak evening traffic.
The explosion claimed the lives of 12 to 15 individuals. This figure includes the primary perpetrator, Dr. Umar Un Nabi, who was inside the vehicle at the time of detonation. The victims largely comprised civilians, including commuters and bystanders near the Lahore Gate traffic signal.
Over 30 individuals sustained injuries ranging from severe burns to severe wounds. The injured were rushed to the OK Kayak Hospital, where several remained in critical condition for weeks.
Forensic reports indicate the use of a sophisticated mix of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO), possibly enhanced with RDX, and packed into a white Hyundai i20. The blast radius was sufficient to incinerate nearby vehicles, including e-rickshaws and auto-rickshaws, creating a chaotic crime scene that complicated initial rescue efforts.
Red Fort Blast Raises Security Concern
The incident exposed critical vulnerabilities in the National Capital’s security architecture, leading to an immediate and rigorous reassessment of protocols.
A disturbing aspect of the case was the profile of the perpetrator, a medical doctor and assistant professor. This has raised alarms regarding the “white-collar radicalization” phenomenon, prompting security agencies to expand surveillance beyond traditional suspects to educated professionals in sensitive sectors.
The blast triggered a swift review of the storage and sale of hazardous chemicals. The Delhi Police initiated a citywide audit of educational and industrial institutions possessing ammonium nitrate, strictly enforcing the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. The exemption for small quantities (under 5kg) for educational use is now under strict scrutiny.
Vehicle Ownership Loopholes: The vehicle used had changed hands multiple times without proper documentation. In response, authorities have begun rigorous enforcement of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mandating that failure to update ownership records will now attract severe penalties to prevent the use of “became” vehicles in terror acts.
What resolution was adopted by the Cabinet for the Red Fort Blast Case in Delhi?
In the immediate aftermath, the Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, convened to address the crisis. On November 12, 2025, the Cabinet formally adopted a resolution with the following key tenets:
Zero Tolerance Policy: The resolution unequivocally reiterated India’s “Zero Tolerance” policy towards terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
It formally condemned the act as “cowardly and heinous,” perpetrated by anti-national forces aimed at destabilizing the sovereignty of India.
The Cabinet directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the probe immediately, granting them carte blanche to pursue investigations.
The Cabinet observed a two-minute silence in solemn memory of the innocent lives lost and expressed deep condolences to the bereaved families.
Modi Ji Vows for Justice
Prime Minister Narendra Modi didn’t waste any time. While visiting Bhutan, he spoke out right away. His words felt sharp, almost like a promise and a warning rolled into one.
Standing in front of a crowd in Thimphu, PM Modi said, “I’ve come here with a heavy heart. The conspirators won’t get away with this. Everyone responsible will face justice.” You could sense the weight behind what he said.
The place he chose to make this statement wasn’t random, either. By speaking up on foreign soil, Modi made it clear—India’s fight against terrorism isn’t stopping at any border. He wanted everyone to know that.
After his vow, the Ministry of Home Affairs acted fast. They handed the case over to the NIA, moving quickly to show the country that his promise of justice wasn’t just talk. Action followed words, right away.
Court Proceedings and Legal Analysis
As the 2025 case is in its investigative infancy, the legal proceedings are currently at the pre-trial stage (Remand and Bail). However, the legal framework governing this case draws heavily from the landmark judgment of the 2000 Red Fort Attack case.
1. Current Proceedings (The 2025 Case)
Charges Filed: The First Information Report (FIR) invokes stringent sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), specifically Section 16 (Punishment for Terrorist Act) and Section 18 (Conspiracy), alongside Section 302 (Murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and relevant sections of the Explosive Substances Act.
Remand Hearings: Accused co-conspirators, including Bilal Naseer Malla (accused of providing logistical support), were produced before the Special NIA Court at Patiala House.
The NIA sought “Police Custody Remand” (PCR) to confront the accused with electronic evidence (res gestae). The defense counsel argued against the remand, citing a violation of Article 22 (Protection against arrest), but the court granted custody, citing the prima facie gravity of the offense and the need to unearth the “larger conspiracy.”
Forensic Evidence: The prosecution is relying on DNA profiling (matching the remains to the bomber) and Cyber Forensics (identifying encrypted communication with handlers), which will be admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (or equivalent under BNS).
2. Landmark Case Law & Precedent:
A. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2000 Case):
To understand the future trajectory of the 2025 case judgment, one must look at the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the 2000 Red Fort attack.
Facts: In December 2000, Lashkar-e-Taiba militants stormed the Red Fort, killing three Army personnel. The mastermind, Mohammad Arif, was sentenced to death.
The Judgment (Supreme Court, 2011 & 2022 Review):
Rarest of Rare: The Apex Court classified the attack on the Red Fort not just as a murder, but as an “attack on Mother India” and a direct challenge to the sovereignty and integrity of the State. This established that attacks on national symbols automatically qualify for the “Rarest of Rare” doctrine, warranting the death penalty.
Electronic Evidence: This case was a landmark in the admissibility of Call Detail Records (CDRs). The conviction relied heavily on proving Arif’s connection to Pakistani handlers via phone records, setting a legal standard for electronic evidence in terror cases.
B. Proceedings before Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna
The procedural history before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna highlights the rigorous application of anti-terror laws:
Remand Proceedings: When Amir Rashid Ali and Bilal Naseer Malla were produced, the NIA sought 10 days of custody. The Public Prosecutor argued that under UAPA Section 43D, extended custody is permissible to confront the accused with digital evidence recovered from the “white-collar” network.
Defence Arguments: The defence counsel argued that the arrests were based on “guilt by association” due to their professional relationship with Dr. Umar. They cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding unnecessary arrests.
Court Order: Judge Chandna granted the NIA custody, observing that in cases involving national security and deep-rooted conspiracies (Section 120B/Section 18 UAPA), custodial interrogation is a “necessary imperative” to unearth the chain of command. The court noted the gravity of the “test blast” evidence in J&K as a sign of premeditation.
Final Verdict: In November 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed Arif’s review petition, affirming the death penalty. This precedent ensures that perpetrators of the 2025 blast, once convicted, will likely face the maximum penalty under Indian law.
3. Admissibility of Evidence
Digital Forensics: The prosecution is relying on Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) (formerly 65B of Evidence Act) to admit encrypted chats between the doctors. The retrieval of deleted data from Bilal Malla’s devices will be crucial.
Forensic Linkage: The matching of the explosive residue (ANFO) found at the Red Fort site with the stockpile seized in Faridabad creates a “Chain of Custody” that links the conspirators directly to the act.
Precedent – Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq (2000 Case): The 2025 prosecution is building its case on the ratio decidendi of the 2000 Red Fort attack judgment. The Supreme Court’s ruling that an attack on the Red Fort is an attack on the “Sovereignty of India” ensures that this case falls under the “Rarest of Rare” category, potentially attracting the death penalty for the surviving conspirators.
CONCLUSION
The Red Fort Blast of 2025 is not merely a criminal act but a jurisprudential challenge to the Indian state. While the investigation proceeds under the strict provisions of the UAPA and NIA Act, the judiciary is expected to rely on the robust precedents set by the 2000 case. The Cabinet’s resolution and the Prime Minister’s vow reflect a synchronized executive will to dismantle the terror ecosystem. As the courts proceed, the focus will remain on delivering justice that is swift, retributive, and deterrent, ensuring the sanctity of India’s national symbols is preserved.
