The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has urged the Delhi High Court to conduct in-camera proceedings in its ongoing plea seeking the death penalty for Yasin Malik, the Kashmiri separatist leader and chief of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Malik is currently serving a life sentence in a terror-funding case.
During a virtual appearance from Tihar Jail, Yasin Malik told the Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain that he had been enduring mental agony for the past three years amid fears of being awarded the death penalty.
The NIA, citing the sensitive nature of the case and security concerns, urged the court to restrict public access and conduct proceedings privately through a secured virtual link. The Bench has agreed to consider this request and scheduled the next hearing for January 28, 2026.
The NIA has appealed against the trial court’s 2022 judgment, which sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In its appeal, the agency argued that allowing a terrorist to escape the death penalty merely by pleading guilty would undermine the sentencing policy and set a dangerous precedent, enabling others accused of terrorism to avoid the harshest punishment.
The trial court, while rejecting NIA’s plea for the death sentence, had earlier remarked that Malik’s actions struck at “the heart of the idea of India” and were designed to forcibly separate Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
Malik, who has refused legal representation and continues to represent himself, appears virtually before the court following a 2024 order restricting his physical presence due to security threats.
He also faces a separate trial in the 1990 killing of four Indian Air Force personnel in Srinagar. In that case, a retired IAF officer, who was a key eyewitness, identified Malik as the primary shooter.
This case continues to stir intense political and emotional debate across India — a stark reminder of how the line between justice, security, and human rights often blurs in conflict-torn regions like Kashmir.
