Yasin Malik is a convict in a terror funding case, where he was found guilty of several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Yasin Malik, the chief of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking medical intervention for his cardiac and kidney ailments. Serving a life sentence in the high-profile terror funding case, Malik’s plea underscores the complex interplay between the rights of incarcerated individuals to healthcare and the state’s responsibilities towards high-risk prisoners.
Malik’s petition, which calls for his referral to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) or any other super-specialty hospital, has sparked a contentious debate, with the Central government challenging the plea’s maintainability. The government’s stance, represented by Advocate Rajat Nair, emphasizes that Malik’s medical needs can be adequately met through Out Patient Department (OPD) treatment within the prison’s facilities, negating the need for hospital admission.
The government’s opposition to Malik’s plea is rooted in concerns over security, labeling him as a “very very high-risk prisoner.” This designation, according to Nair, justifies the decision to provide medical care within the confines of Tihar Jail, where Malik is currently lodged. The debate took a turn when it was revealed that Malik had refused to be examined by a medical board from AIIMS, convened to assess his health via video conference.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to ensure Malik receives the necessary medical treatment, marking a critical juncture in the case. The court’s directive aims to balance the imperative of safeguarding Malik’s health with the logistical and security challenges presented by his status as a high-risk detainee.
Also read- Delhi High Court To Review BCI’s Decision: Foreign Law Firms (lawchakra.in)
The backdrop of this legal and medical drama is Malik’s conviction in a terror funding case, where he was found guilty of several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Special Court’s judgment highlighted Malik’s shift from peaceful political activism to violence, a transition that ultimately led to his life sentence. The court notably dismissed Malik’s claim of adopting Gandhian principles post-1994, pointing to the evidence of his continued involvement in violent activities.
As the Delhi High Court adjourns the matter to February 14, the same day set to hear the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea for the death penalty for Malik, the case presents a multifaceted dilemma. On one hand, it raises questions about the rights of prisoners to healthcare and humane treatment; on the other, it delves into the complexities of administering justice to individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences.
“Betraying the good intentions of the government he took a different path to orchestrate violence in the guise of political struggle. …the evidence on the basis of which charges were framed and to which convict has pleaded guilty, speaks otherwise,”
highlighted the special court.
In a comprehensive ruling, the NIA Court noted that Malik had disregarded the government’s positive intentions by opting for a route of violence. Furthermore, the court dismissed Malik’s claim of adopting Gandhian principles post-1994.
This unfolding story not only highlights the challenges of providing medical care to high-risk prisoners but also reflects the broader tensions between national security concerns and human rights obligations. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of Malik’s plea for medical treatment will undoubtedly set a precedent for how such cases are handled in the future, balancing the scales of justice, security, and human dignity.
Also read- Gyanvapi Case | AIMPLB Plans To Move Supreme Court Challenging Allahabad High Court Ruling: Argues Islam Prohibits Temple Demolition (lawchakra.in)