Delhi High Court to Hear NIA’s Death Penalty Plea Against Yasin Malik on April 22
Court grants NIA four weeks to file rejoinder in appeal seeking harsher punishment in the 2017 terror funding case.
The Delhi High Court on January 28 granted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) four weeks as a final opportunity to file its response to separatist leader Yasin Malik’s objection against the agency’s appeal seeking the death penalty.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said there was no urgency in the matter, noting that Malik is already serving a life sentence. The court declined to fast-track the case, observing that the appeal relates only to the enhancement of punishment.
Yasin Malik, who appeared before the court via video link from Tihar Jail, accused the NIA of unnecessarily delaying the proceedings and said repeated adjournments were causing him mental distress. In response, the NIA told the court that Malik himself took nearly a year to submit his reply, which ran into 85 pages and included material not directly related to the case. The agency said its rejoinder was currently under review and also requested that the hearing be held in camera.
The court has now listed the matter for further hearing on April 22.
Malik, the chief of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), was convicted in May 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code in a 2017 terror funding case. A trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
In 2023, the NIA challenged the sentence in the Delhi High Court, arguing that life imprisonment was insufficient given the seriousness of the offences. The agency described Malik as a “dreaded terrorist” and said his actions caused significant harm to the nation and to the families of security personnel.
The NIA also argued that allowing a guilty plea to result in a life sentence instead of the death penalty could weaken India’s sentencing framework in terrorism cases. It said the trial court’s conclusion that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category was legally flawed.
In his affidavit, Malik claimed that for nearly three decades he had acted as part of an unofficial peace process, holding discussions with former prime ministers, intelligence officials, and other key figures to promote stability in Jammu and Kashmir. He alleged that the state was now ignoring this past engagement and accused authorities of using him as a political scapegoat.
