In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked Yasin Malik, a convicted terrorist, to respond to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea seeking the transfer of his trial in two high-profile cases from Jammu to New Delhi. The cases in question involve the killing of four Indian Air Force personnel and the 1989 abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of the then Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed.
The appeal by the CBI comes in the wake of a Jammu trial court’s order that mandated Malik’s physical presence for the cross-examination of witnesses, raising concerns over security risks due to the transportation of Malik from Tihar Jail in Delhi to Jammu. The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, has scheduled the next hearing for December 14, by which Malik is required to submit his response.
During today’s proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, highlighted the presence of a fully equipped courtroom within Tihar Jail itself, complete with videoconferencing facilities, which had been used for trials in the past. Mehta argued for the feasibility of conducting the trial within the jail premises to mitigate security concerns.
The Supreme Court, which had previously stayed the Jammu court’s order in April 2023, took note of the new applications submitted by the CBI to transfer the trial. The court’s decision to potentially set up a makeshift courtroom in Tihar Jail suggests a move towards ensuring the safety and security of all involved while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The matter drew additional attention as Malik was physically present during a Supreme Court hearing in July 2023, which led to Solicitor General Mehta writing to the Home Secretary, pointing out the security lapse and emphasizing the risks involved in such appearances.
Amidst these legal proceedings, Malik has also sought intervention from the Delhi High Court for medical treatment at AIIMS, claiming that the authorities are using security orders as a pretext to restrict his physical production in court.
