synopsis
During his late-night court appearance, Tahawwur Rana asked his legal counsels whether he could "plead the Fifth", referencing the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution which protects against self-incrimination. His counsels informed him that while Indian law does not include the Fifth Amendment, it similarly provides protection from self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
As he was produced before a special NIA court late on Thursday night, 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana appeared worried when he asked his legal counsel if his trial would be over in a year. The reply—“No”—seemed to cause visible concern, said a Times of India report quoting sources.
Rana was informed by his legal aid counsels (LACs) that just filing a chargesheet could take a year, and that a fast-tracked trial in the Indian legal system could stretch between five to ten years. Seeking clarity on his rights, Rana asked if he could plead the “Fifth”, referring to the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. His lawyers clarified that Indian laws too provide protection from “self-incrimination” under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, the report added.
Also read: 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana under 'suicide watch' at NIA HQ after extradition
Wearing a brown jumpsuit, Crocs, and spectacles, Rana—visibly frail, jet-lagged, and donning a four-to-six-inch white beard—was produced before special judge Chander Jit Singh at Patiala House Court around 10:30 pm under heavy security. Advocates Piyush Sachdeva and Lakshya Dheer were appointed as his legal aid counsels by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Medical concerns and court directives on care
Rana, a former Pakistan Army officer accused of playing a key role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, did not show further anxiety during the court proceedings. However, reports said he suffers from multiple health issues, including abdominal, intestinal, and sinus cysts.
According to the TOI report, Rana came across as a “smart individual” capable of striking “casual conversations”. While he refused fruits offered by NIA personnel while awaiting court proceedings, he interacted “comfortably” with agency officials. The report added that he is being “taken good care of”, with the government and NIA keen to make the case a “model one”.
Rana’s primary concerns—besides claiming innocence and arguing that extradition was unnecessary as he had already spent over a decade in jail and had been “acquitted”—were related to his medical needs. The NIA assured the court that he would receive all necessary medical attention. The issue of “manhandling” was also raised and addressed by the court, which ordered a medical examination every 48 hours.
Notably, a US district court jury had acquitted Rana on June 9, 2011, of conspiracy to provide material support to the 26/11 attackers. During Thursday’s hearing, his counsels requested that he be provided with a “writing instrument” to prepare his defence.
Prosecution seeks detailed probe, cites links with terrorists
The hearing, which lasted just 10–15 minutes, concluded by 11 pm. The order granting custody was pronounced around 2 am on Friday. The prosecution, led by senior advocate Dayan Krishnan and advocate Narender Mann, argued that Rana is the first arrested accused in this case and has links to known terrorists and other accused individuals. They submitted that a detailed investigation is needed, as Rana must be confronted with extensive evidence and could lead to new revelations.
The court granted the NIA 18 days’ custody, slightly less than the 20 days sought by the agency, which had expressed concern that Rana could orchestrate plots like the 26/11 attacks targeting more Indian cities. The court allowed Rana to meet his legal representative on alternate days, use only a soft-tip pen, and mandated that all lawyer interactions occur under NIA supervision and within hearing range.