Today(on 11th July), Delhi High Court Judge Amit Sharma recused himself from hearing an NIA plea for death penalty against Yasin Malik in a terror funding case. The case moved to Justice Prathiba M Singh’s bench due to judge roster changes, with a new hearing set for August 9.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 11th July), Delhi High Court Judge Amit Sharma recused himself from the proceedings involving the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea for a death penalty against separatist leader Yasin Malik in a terror funding case.
The matter, previously handled by another bench, was listed before a division bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh following a change in the roster of judges assigned to such cases.
“The case will be listed before a different bench, excluding Justice Sharma, on August 9.”
– Justice Singh directed, marking a new date for the next hearing.
Yasin Malik, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief, is currently serving a life sentence in this case. He was virtually present for the court proceedings from Tihar Jail. The court has also ordered that he will continue to appear virtually for subsequent hearings, ensuring his participation while addressing security concerns.
The case has seen several significant developments since its inception. On May 29 last year, the high court had issued a notice to Malik regarding the NIA’s plea seeking the death penalty and required his presence in court for the next proceedings. In light of security concerns, jail authorities filed an application requesting Malik’s virtual appearance, describing him as a “very high-risk prisoner.” This application underscored the importance of not physically producing him in court to maintain public order and safety. The high court granted this request, setting a precedent for his virtual attendance in future hearings.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Postpones Hearing on NIA’s Death Penalty Plea for Yasin Malik
The roots of this legal battle trace back to May 24, 2022, when a trial court in Delhi sentenced Malik to life imprisonment. He was found guilty of multiple offenses under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This conviction marked a critical point in the government’s efforts to combat terrorism and enforce the rule of law in cases involving national security.
Malik’s sentencing was a result of comprehensive investigations and legal proceedings that highlighted his involvement in terror-related activities. The case has garnered significant attention, reflecting the complex interplay between legal justice and national security concerns.
The ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court continue to draw public and media interest. The court’s decisions in this case are being closely watched, as they have broader implications for how cases involving high-risk prisoners and national security are managed in the Indian judicial system.
The next hearing date approaches on August 9.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has appealed against the life imprisonment sentence handed to Yasin Malik, who had pleaded guilty to various charges, including those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Malik’s admission of guilt led to his conviction and subsequent sentencing to life imprisonment. However, the NIA is now seeking an enhancement of this sentence to the death penalty.
The NIA’s appeal is grounded in the argument that a terrorist cannot be awarded a life sentence merely on the basis of a guilty plea and an aversion to undergoing trial.
“A terrorist cannot receive a life sentence solely because they pleaded guilty and opted out of a trial.”
– the NIA emphasized.
The agency contends that allowing dreaded terrorists to escape capital punishment by simply pleading guilty would result in a significant undermining of the sentencing policy.
“If dangerous terrorists avoid capital punishment by pleading guilty, it would undermine the integrity of sentencing policies.”
– the NIA argued.
The NIA further stated that a life sentence is inadequate for the magnitude of the crimes committed by terrorists, especially considering the loss of lives suffered by the nation and the families of soldiers. The agency has criticized the trial court’s decision, which concluded that Malik’s crimes did not qualify as the “rarest of the rare cases” necessary for the death penalty. The NIA described this conclusion as “ex-facie legally flawed and completely unsustainable.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court to Hear Today Plea Demanding Death Penalty for Yasin Malik.
The trial court had previously rejected the NIA’s plea for the death penalty, despite acknowledging the severe impact of Malik’s actions. The court stated that the crimes committed by Malik struck at the “heart of the idea of India” and were aimed at forcibly seceding Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
However, it ruled that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria required for a death sentence, noting-
“The case did not qualify as ‘the rarest of rare’ circumstances warranting the death penalty.”
