Why did the SC cite Kasab's fair trial while addressing Yasin Malik's case?

A Jammu court handling Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cases directed separatist Yasin Malik to appear in-person. The CBI said his appearance could destabilise Jammu and Kashmir

The Supreme Court today referred to the fair trial offered to 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab as it heard the Central Bureau of Investigation’s plea against a Jammu court order requiring separatist Yasin Malik to appear in person. The case concerns the 1990 killing of four Indian Air Force personnel near Srinagar and the 1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed, the daughter of the then Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed.

 

Malik is the main accused in both cases and is currently serving a life sentence in Delhi’s Tihar Jail for a terror funding conviction.

 

Why CBI opposed Malik’s court appearance

 

 

In 2022, a court handling Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cases directed Malik to appear in person. Malik has also expressed his desire to be present in-person at the trial. However, the CBI argued that his appearance could destabilise Jammu and Kashmir and endanger witnesses. Representing the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih, to avoid transporting Malik to Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Justice Oka questioned how cross-examinations could proceed effectively via video conferencing, given Jammu's poor internet connectivity. Mehta suggested transferring the trial to Delhi if Malik insists on appearing in person, claiming Malik is ‘playing tricks’ by doing so.

 

Top court propose jail trial setup for Malik

 

The Solicitor General described Yasin Malik as “not just another terrorist” and pointed to his associations with Pakistan and Hafeez Saeed. In response, Justice Oka emphasised the importance of a fair trial, referencing the precedent set in Ajmal Kasab’s case. Mehta countered, arguing that such cases require flexibility and cannot always “go by the books”.

The bench proposed setting up a court within the jail premises for the trial and asked the government to provide details about the number of witnesses and security measures. “We need to see how the judge will be stationed in jail for this court,” the bench observed. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing next Thursday.