Will argue in-person: Yasin Malik to Delhi High Court on NIA plea seeking death penalty for him

New Delhi: Turning down the court's suggestion to appoint a lawyer on his behalf, separatist leader Yasin Malik on Friday told the Delhi High Court he wished to argue in-person against a National Investigation Agency plea seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case.

The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief (JKLF) was virtually present for the court proceedings from Tihar jail where he is serving a life term in the case.

A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait listed the matter for hearing on September 19 and said Malik "may think again" about having legal representation in the case. The court also gave him time to think about either filing a reply or a written submission.

"He has the right to contest in individual capacity but any litigant must be equipped with legal assistance," the bench, also comprising Justice Girish Kathpalia, said while asserting that there should be fairness in the proceedings.

"We would prefer appointing an amicus so that he can keep a watch on his interest also... You may argue in-person. Simultaneously, a good advocate from criminal side can be appointed as amicus to argue from your side," it told Malik.

Malik also objected to being produced through virtual mode, saying he was physically produced in the trial court and there was never any law and order problem.

"I was produced physically in trial court until conviction. They don't want to give me a fair trial. This is against the ethics of fair trial," he said, adding that the high court did not hear him before directing his virtual presence from jail.

The bench asked Malik to approach the Supreme Court to mount a challenge to the production order if he was aggrieved.

Stating that he did not want to go to the top court, Malik urged the bench to grant him a hearing through virtual or physical mode.

"I want to come physically but if the court allows virtual hearing, I will appear through that mode," he stated.

The bench observed that the case needed a "substantial hearing", which may not be possible if one of the parties was present virtually and suggested the appointment of either an amicus curiae or a lawyer of Malik's choice to protect his interest.

During the hearing, the court also asked if Malik could be called or a "special court" could be assembled somewhere else.

"I argued myself (earlier). I will argue myself. I know my case much better. There was no lawyer in the trial court," he responded.

On May 29 last year, the high court issued Malik notice on the NIA's plea seeking death penalty for him in the terror funding case and sought his presence before it on the next date.

Subsequently, jail authorities filed an application seeking permission for his virtual appearance on grounds that he was a "very high-risk prisoner" and it was imperative to not physically produce him in court to maintain public order and safety.

The request was allowed by the high court.

In the present matter, on May 24, 2022, a trial court here sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after holding him guilty for offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.

Malik had pleaded guilty to the charges, including those under the UAPA, and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Appealing against the sentence, the NIA emphasised that a terrorist cannot be sentenced life term only because he has pleaded guilty and chosen not to go through trial.

While seeking enhancement of the sentence to death penalty, the NIA said if such dreaded terrorists are not given capital punishment on account of pleading guilty, there would be complete erosion of the sentencing policy and terrorists would have a way out to avoid capital punishment.

The trial court, which had rejected the NIA's plea for death penalty, had said the crimes committed by Malik struck at the "heart of the idea of India" and were intended to forcefully secede Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.

It had, however, noted that the case was not the "rarest of rare", warranting death penalty.