The Delhi High Court has deferred the hearing to February 14 regarding the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) request for the death penalty for Yasin Malik, a prominent Kashmiri separatist leader, in a terror funding case. The court ordered Malik, who is currently serving a life sentence and has admitted guilt, to participate in the proceedings virtually.
In a recent session, the Division Bench, consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur, observed the absence of Malik’s representation and subsequently adjourned the case to the specified date next year.
Previously, on May 29, the High Court had issued a notice to Malik in response to the NIA’s plea, seeking his presence in the next hearing. The jail authorities, citing Malik as a “very high-risk prisoner,” had requested permission for his virtual appearance, arguing that his physical presence in court could disrupt public order and safety. This request was approved by the High Court.
Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 24, 2022, after being convicted of various charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Challenging this sentence, the NIA has argued that merely pleading guilty should not lead to a reduced sentence for a terrorist. The agency emphasized that failing to impose the death penalty on terrorists like Malik, solely because they pleaded guilty, would undermine the sentencing policy and provide terrorists with an escape from capital punishment.
The NIA strongly believes that a life sentence does not equate to the severity of the crimes committed by terrorists, especially considering the losses suffered by the nation and the families of soldiers. The agency’s plea stated,
“Not giving capital punishment to such dreaded terrorist will result in miscarriage of justice, as an act of terrorism is not a crime against society but it’s a crime against the entire nation; in other words, it’s an act of external aggression’, an act of war’ and an affront to the sovereignty of nation’.”
Also read- Delhi High Court Dismisses UCC Petitions, Defers To Law Commission (lawchakra.in)
The trial court, while denying the NIA’s request for the death penalty, recognized that Malik’s actions severely impacted the “heart of the idea of India” and aimed to forcefully separate Jammu and Kashmir from India. However, it concluded that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” criterion necessary for the death penalty.
Malik received a life term for two specific offenses: section 121 (waging war against the government of India) of the IPC and section 17 (raising funds for a terrorist act) of the UAPA. As per the Supreme Court’s interpretation, life imprisonment means incarceration until the end of life, unless commuted. Additionally, Malik was sentenced to a 10-year jail term under various other sections of the IPC and UAPA.
This ongoing case continues to be a focal point, highlighting the intricate legal and political challenges associated with terrorism and national security in India.
