SRINAGAR: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) four weeks to file its rejoinder to a reply submitted by separatist leader Yasin Malik in connection with the agency’s appeal seeking the death penalty in a terror funding case, Live Law reported.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on April 22, 2026.
Malik, who appeared virtually from Tihar Jail where he is serving a life sentence, accused the NIA of delaying proceedings and causing him mental trauma by repeatedly seeking adjournments in the appeal filed in 2023. However, a Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that there was no urgency in the matter.
“There is no urgency. This is for enhancement of sentence. You are already on life sentence,” the Bench remarked.
The court described the four-week period as the final opportunity for the NIA to submit its response.
Counsel appearing for the NIA informed the court that Malik had filed an extensive reply containing material not directly connected to the appeal and said the rejoinder was currently under vetting. The agency also contested Malik’s claim of repeated adjournments, stating that he himself had taken nearly a year to file his response.
The NIA further told the court that it was seeking an in-camera hearing in the case.
A Delhi trial court on May 24, 2022, sentenced Malik chief of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) to life imprisonment after convicting him under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), according to The Hindu.
In 2023, the NIA challenged the sentence before the High Court, seeking enhancement to the death penalty. In its appeal, the agency argued that granting life imprisonment to “dreaded terrorists” merely because they pleaded guilty would undermine the country’s sentencing framework and provide a route to evade capital punishment.
The agency contended that a life term was not proportionate to the gravity of the offences, particularly when the nation and families of security personnel had suffered loss of life. It also maintained that the trial court’s conclusion that Malik’s case did not fall under the “rarest of the rare” category was legally flawed and unsustainable.
In his reply, Malik stated that he had spent nearly three decades as a key participant in a state-backed “backchannel” process, engaging with successive prime ministers, intelligence officials and business figures in efforts aimed at peace-building in Jammu and Kashmir.
In an 85-page affidavit, Malik detailed his life journey from his school years to his involvement with militant groups and subsequent interactions with political leaders. He claimed the State was attempting to erase the history of such engagements.
Describing himself as a political scapegoat, Malik said that while scapegoating had become routine in politics, being made a “sacrificial goat” went beyond moral justification.
