The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) a final opportunity of four weeks to file its rejoinder to separatist leader Yasin Malik’s reply in the agency’s appeal seeking the death penalty for him in a 2017 terror funding case.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja listed the matter for further hearing on April 22, observing that there was “no urgency” in the case since Malik was already serving a life sentence.
“There is no urgency. This is for enhancement of sentence. You are already on life sentence,” the court remarked in response to Malik’s complaint that the agency was deliberately delaying the proceedings and causing him mental trauma.
Malik, appearing virtually from Tihar Jail, where he is lodged following his conviction in May 2022, alleged that the NIA was “wasting time” by repeatedly seeking adjournments in the appeal filed last year. However, the NIA countered the accusation, stating that Malik himself took a year to file his reply.
The NIA’s counsel told the bench that Malik’s reply was extensive and included content not directly relevant to the case, which was why the rejoinder was still being vetted. The agency also informed the court that it was seeking in-camera proceedings in the matter, given the sensitive nature of the case.
The bench granted the extension as a “last opportunity” for the NIA to file its rejoinder.
Malik, the chief of the now-banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 24, 2022, by a Delhi court under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.
In 2023, the NIA approached the High Court seeking enhancement of Malik’s sentence to capital punishment, arguing that the life sentence imposed by the trial court was “grossly inadequate” and legally flawed.
The NIA, in its appeal, contended that if dreaded terrorists were allowed to escape the death penalty by merely pleading guilty, it would undermine the deterrent effect of sentencing and weaken national security jurisprudence.
“A life sentence is not commensurate with the crime committed by terrorists, especially when the nation and the families of soldiers have suffered grave loss. The trial court’s conclusion that Malik’s case doesn’t fall in the ‘rarest of rare’ category is ex facie flawed,” the agency submitted.
In his 85-page reply, Malik argued that he had played a central role in a backchannel peace process with successive Indian governments, intelligence agencies, and even influential business leaders, aimed at resolving the Kashmir issue peacefully.
He narrated his journey from youth activism to armed militancy, and eventually to non-violent political engagement. He accused the state of attempting to erase the history of his cooperation.
“Being a scapegoat in politics isn’t new… but being a sacrificial goat is something which goes beyond the shard of high-handedness of morality—if at all politics had one,” he stated in his affidavit.
The case is now slated for hearing on April 22. The court’s decision will be closely watched as it may set a significant precedent on sentencing in terror-related cases.
