India, Aug. 1 -- Yet another terror case has failed to pass muster in the courts on the grounds of shoddy investigation. A special court in Mumbai has acquitted all seven charged by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case that killed six persons. The Malegaon acquittal comes 10 days after the Bombay High Court overturned a 2015 verdict by a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court in the Mumbai serial train blasts case, in which 189 persons died. The high court acquitted all 12 persons convicted by the MCOCA court and pulled up the Maharashtra anti-terrorism squad for botched investigation. The Malegaon verdict is equally harsh on the investigators, though the court has given qualified acquittals. Special Judge AK Lahoti said: "A grave degree of suspicion is established, but not enough to convict them; hence, the court has given them the benefit of the doubt." Several questions arise at this point. One, why do investigators fail to establish guilt in courts, even in the most gruesome terror incidents? In the Malegaon case, the judge found procedural gaps, poor evidence gathering and recording (the spot panchnama, or record of events, was faulty, for instance), unreliable evidence and hostile witnesses. Two, why does the investigation and judicial process stretch this long? It has been 17 years since the Malegaon blasts, and closure seems a distant possiblity. Justice has eluded the victims, and years after the incident, the nation does not know who perpetrated these acts of terror. Time-bound probes and faster trials are necessary not just to ensure timely justice but also to reduce the pain of waiting for closure. Delays also expose cases to allegations of interference and manipulation of evidence and witnesses. A review of similar cases from the same period may be instructive: the 2006 Malegaon blasts which killed 37 persons; the 2007 Samjhauta Express blasts that killed 68; the Mecca Masjid blasts (2007) that claimed nine lives; and the Ajmer Dargah Sharif blasts (2007) in which three persons died. The investigators failed to secure convictions in these cases, which became politically sensitive as they came to be clubbed under the umbrella term "saffron terror": The first accused in the Malegaon case was Pragya Singh Thakur, a saffron-clad political activist, who was elected to Parliament in 2019 on a BJP ticket, and other accused involved a serving Army officer, Lt Colonel Shrikant Purohit. Strangely, NIA did not appeal against the acquittals in these cases. The guilty in terror cases have to be found, their guilt established and punished. It is also important that accountability is fixed on investigators who fail to follow due process. Committed officers, good forensics, adherence to procedures, and insulation from political pressure - not coercive confessions - can ensure convictions, justice and closure in terror cases....