Supreme Court Remarks on Yasin Malik’s Case: “Even Ajmal Kasab Was Granted a Fair Trial
The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested the possibility of setting up a courtroom within Delhi's Tihar Jail for Jammu and Kashmir separatist leader Yasin Malik to facilitate his participation in a kidnapping case. During the hearing,
The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested the possibility of setting up a courtroom within Delhi’s Tihar Jail for Jammu and Kashmir separatist leader Yasin Malik to facilitate his participation in a kidnapping case.
During the hearing, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked, “Even Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial in our country,” emphasizing the importance of ensuring fair legal proceedings.
The case pertains to a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal against a September 2022 order from a Jammu-based Special TADA court, which directed Malik, who is currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail, to be produced in person for cross-examining witnesses in the 1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed, the daughter of the then Union Home Minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. Rubaiya was abducted in Srinagar on December 8, 1989, and released five days later in exchange for the release of five terrorists.
During the hearing, the bench questioned how cross-examination could be conducted virtually, given Jammu’s lack of proper connectivity. It also pointed to the precedent of providing a fair trial, even for individuals like Ajmal Kasab, highlighting that Malik, too, should be given the same legal rights.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, raised concerns about the security risks of transporting Malik to Jammu for trial. He also accused Malik of “playing tricks” by requesting to appear in person instead of engaging legal counsel, further referencing an image showing Malik with 26/11 Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed.
In response, the court suggested conducting the trial within Tihar Jail, with the judge traveling to Delhi for the proceedings. The bench also noted that all accused in the case needed to be heard before passing any final orders. The matter was adjourned for further consideration on November 28.