Nearly eighteen years after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, India has taken a decisive step to pursue justice against key Pakistani accused who have remained outside its jurisdiction.

The Mumbai Police have initiated proceedings for trial in absentia against six Pakistani terrorists, including Lashkar-e-Taiba handlers Hafiz Saeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.

This move is being carried out under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam has approached the special court to begin proceedings against the wanted accused despite their absence from India. Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti has also written to Nikam, stressing that sufficient evidence exists against the accused and that their absence should not indefinitely stall the case.

This development is expected to become one of the most high-profile tests of Section 356 since the BNSS came into effect.

The 26/11 attacks, carried out between 26 and 29 November 2008, killed 166 people and injured hundreds. Ten Pakistan-based terrorists arrived by sea and targeted multiple locations, including the Taj Mahal Palace, Oberoi-Trident, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Nariman House and Café Leopold.

Nine attackers were killed by security forces, while Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist, was tried and executed in 2012. Investigations traced the conspiracy to handlers in Pakistan who trained, equipped and guided the attackers.

The six accused now facing trial in absentia are Hafiz Saeed, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Sajid Mir, Mazhar Iqbal alias Abu Alqama, Asim alias Abu Qahafa and Major Abdur Rehman Pasha. Saeed is accused of engineering the attack, while Lakhvi, Alqama and Qahafa allegedly supervised the attackers from a Karachi control room during the assault.

Trial in absentia allows proceedings to continue even when the accused is not physically present, but only after strict safeguards are met. Section 356 requires that the accused be declared proclaimed offenders, with two consecutive arrest warrants issued at least thirty days apart.

Proclamations must be published, including in newspapers, and ninety days must elapse from the framing of charges before trial begins. Information must also be publicised at the accused’s last known residence, and relatives or associates informed. If the accused has no lawyer, the court must appoint one at the state’s expense. Evidence must still be presented and tested, ensuring the trial meets the standards of criminal justice.

The special court has already issued a proclamation against the six accused, directing them to appear by 18 August 2026. Nikam has sought issuance of the proclamation through Interpol, with the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarding it for international publication.

India has previously sought Red Corner Notices against several suspects, but those efforts did not secure their presence in court. Section 356 now provides a mechanism to prevent indefinite delays caused by absence abroad.

Lakhvi has long been described as the operational mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, even in Pakistan’s own investigation, though proceedings there have been criticised for lack of progress. Hafiz Saeed, the founder of LeT, has been accused by India and other countries of playing a central role in the conspiracy, though Pakistan’s original chargesheet did not name him. Kasab’s disclosures during interrogation also pointed to the roles of Saeed and Lakhvi.

A conviction in absentia would provide India with a formal judicial finding against the accused, though arrest and custody would still depend on Pakistan’s cooperation, extradition or other international mechanisms. The law cannot compel Pakistan to hand over the accused, but it ensures that their absence does not freeze the judicial process.

This move matters beyond 26/11. For years, India has struggled to prosecute cross-border terror planners who remain outside its jurisdiction. Section 356 attempts to close that gap by allowing trials to proceed after safeguards are met.

The current proceedings do not mean Saeed or Lakhvi have been convicted, but they mark the beginning of a process that could set a precedent for handling cases where accused remain beyond India’s physical reach. For a case that has symbolised the limits of cross-border justice, this represents a significant new chapter in India’s legal and counter-terror framework.