Today, On 21st February, The Supreme Court directed Yasin Malik to appear before it via video conferencing in the IAF personnel killing case. The court also indicated the possibility of allowing his virtual cross-examination. This move aims to ensure legal proceedings while maintaining security concerns. The final decision on the virtual cross-examination is yet to be confirmed.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today approved the virtual appearance of separatist leader Yasin Malik in a case concerning the killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel.
This decision came after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged a Jammu court’s order that required Malik’s physical presence for witness examination. Currently serving a sentence in Tihar Jail for a terror funding conviction, Malik has opposed participating via video conferencing.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reviewed the case, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the CBI. Mehta informed the Court that the third Additional Sessions Judge in Jammu is “well-equipped with a VC setup,” making virtual examinations possible.
When the Bench inquired about Malik’s legal representation, Mehta noted that Malik had opted to represent himself and refused legal assistance.
Justice Oka responded,
“Now that this facility is in place, we can order for cross-examination through VC.”
The Court instructed that Malik be notified of the order and appear virtually for the proceedings, scheduling his video appearance for March 7.
The Court also directed the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Central Prison to ensure Malik’s participation, observing,
“Tihar Jail has comprehensive facilities, and all necessary arrangements should be made.”
Mehta confirmed that proper arrangements had been established, stating,
“We have a separate courtroom where Hon’ble judges and lawyers can sit.”
On January 20, the Supreme Court highlighted the necessity for effective cross-examination via video conferencing and directed the Registrar General of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to enhance the system.
Ordering immediate steps to install a reliable system for conducting hearings via video, the Bench noted,
“We have perused the observations made by the judge. At two places he has recorded that the video conference system in his court is not functioning properly,”
The Registrar General was tasked with submitting a report on these improvements by February 17, with further hearings scheduled for February 21.
The Court instructed,
“The Registrar General (RG) to do the needful and submit a report to this court after deputing any expert to examine the newly installed system,”
Notably, on November 28, 2024, it was reported that a courtroom equipped with video conferencing facilities already exists in the Delhi jail where Malik is held, and judicial proceedings have previously taken place there. The CBI has filed two applications with the Court: one for transferring the trial to the Delhi jail and another for amending the memo of parties and the cause title, prompting the Court to issue notice to Malik.
The first case against Malik involves the killing of four IAF officials in an attack in January 1990 in Rawalpora, Srinagar. A special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Court in Jammu is adjudicating this matter. In September 2021, the Court issued a production warrant for Malik to appear physically, which the CBI has contested in the Supreme Court.
The second case pertains to the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, the daughter of then Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, in 1989. Although legal aid has been offered to Malik by the Special TADA Court in Jammu, he declined it, insisting on his physical presence.
During the last hearing on November 21, Mehta remarked that Malik had previously shared a platform with Hafiz Saeed, raising security concerns, and stated, “he is not yet another terrorist.”
He described Malik’s request to personally cross-examine witnesses as a “card up his sleeve” and noted that while the State was willing to provide an advocate for him, “he is refusing… We (the State) cannot go by the book in such cases.”
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mohd. Yasin Malik [SLP(Crl) 5526-5527/2023]