In an unexpected development, Yasin Malik, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) commander, appeared in person at the Supreme Court, causing a stir among the judiciary and the Central government. The Supreme Court had not issued any order for Malik, who is serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail for a terror funding case, to appear in person. This unexpected appearance raised serious security concerns, as highlighted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Yasin Malik is a figure of significant historical importance in the context of the Kashmir conflict. As the leader of the JKLF, he was a key player in the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Despite renouncing violence and advocating for a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue, Malik’s past actions led to his conviction in a terror funding case, and he is currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail. His sudden appearance at the Supreme Court marks a new chapter in his controversial and tumultuous career.
Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Ministry of Home Affairs had explicitly directed that Malik should not be brought out from jail. Despite this, Malik was presented before the top court for a hearing on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea against a Jammu court order. The court, taken aback by Malik’s presence, reiterated that there was no such order passed by it asking Malik to present himself in person.
In a strongly worded letter to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla, Mehta expressed his concerns over this grave security lapse. He stated,
“A person with terrorist and secessionist background who is not only a convict in a terror funding case but has known connections with terror organisations in Pakistan could have escaped, could have been forcibly taken away or could have been killed.”
The Solicitor General also pointed out that an order by the Home Ministry under Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) bars jail authorities from bringing Malik out of jail for security reasons. He wrote, “In any view of the matter so long as the order under Section 268 of CrPC subsists, jail authorities had no power to bring him out of jail premises nor did they have any reason to do so.” He urged the Home Secretary to take suitable steps to address this serious security lapse.
The Jammu court had sought Malik’s physical appearance for cross-examination of witnesses in two cases – the killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel and the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of former Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed in 1989. However, the Supreme Court had previously stayed the Jammu court’s order for Malik’s physical presence.
This incident underscores the importance of stringent security measures and adherence to protocols when dealing with high-risk individuals involved in terror activities. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in managing the complex security landscape in India.