The Delhi High Court is considering the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency seeking the death penalty for Yasin Malik, after a trial court had convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Indian Penal Code in a terror-funding case. The NIA contends that the crimes committed by Malik involved waging war against the government of India, raising funds for terrorist acts, and instigating terrorist activities which threatened national sovereignty and integrity — and that a life sentence is not commensurate with the gravity of those offences.
In its recent applications, the NIA has asked the Court to permit certain parts of the hearing to proceed in camera (i.e., private sessions) on grounds of security and public-order concerns. The agency pointed out that Malik is classified as a “very high risk prisoner” and argued that open court hearings might compromise safety, confidentiality of intelligence inputs, or the welfare of witnesses. It also sought permission for virtual appearances and suggested that certain evidence may need to be heard behind closed doors. The High Court has acknowledged these applications and is weighing whether to authorise private hearings for some segments of the appeal.
Meanwhile, the Court has directed Malik to file a reply to the NIA’s appeal within four weeks. Malik has indicated that he intends to represent himself rather than appoint new counsel, asserting his personal right to self-representation. He has also objected to the mode of his production, having asked for physical appearance and challenged earlier orders directing virtual production from prison. The Court emphasised that even when self-represented, Malik must be afforded fair hearing, adequate time for preparation and, if necessary, the appointment of an amicus curiae to safeguard his interests.
This appeal raises significant questions about the interplay of national-security concerns, the right to a fair trial (including transparency of hearings), and whether private or closed sessions can be justified in capital-punishment proceedings. The High Court’s decision on permitting private hearings for portions of this appeal is expected to set a precedent on how matters involving terrorism, intelligence disclosures and high-risk inmates are managed in appellate courts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.