Lagatar24 Desk
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, during a hearing on Thursday, highlighted the importance of a fair trial while addressing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against a Jammu court order allowing Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik to appear in person. The court underscored that even Ajmal Kasab, the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict, received a fair trial.
Case Background
Yasin Malik, currently serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail for a terror funding case, is the primary accused in the 1990 killing of four Indian Air Force personnel and the 1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of then Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed.
The Jammu court had directed Malik’s physical presence for trial, prompting the CBI to raise safety concerns and challenge the order.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench questioned the feasibility of online cross-examinations, citing connectivity challenges in Jammu, and sought a balance between ensuring Malik’s safety and upholding trial integrity. “In our country, even Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial,” the court noted, emphasizing the need for justice.
CBI’s Arguments
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Malik’s insistence on appearing in person posed risks to witness safety. He highlighted Malik’s refusal to appoint a lawyer and presented a photograph showing Malik on stage with Hafiz Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Mehta suggested holding proceedings within Tihar Jail and informed the bench he would seek further instructions.
The CBI invoked Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows state authorities to restrict the removal of prisoners from jail for court appearances, alleging that the lower court’s order ignored this provision.
Court’s Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Solicitor General to provide details about the witnesses in the trial and explore alternative arrangements, such as proceedings inside Tihar Jail. The bench allowed the CBI to amend its petition to include all accused in the case as respondents.
The next hearing has been scheduled for November 28, with the court emphasizing the need for procedural fairness while addressing safety concerns.
