The Delhi high court on Monday sought a response from separatist leader and chief of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Yasin Malik.
Malik was awarded a life term by a trial court, on a plea by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which sought the death penalty against him in a terror funding case.
A bench comprising justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh also issued the production warrant for Malik to appear before the court on the next date of hearing on August 9.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the NIA, compared Malik with al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Justice Mridul observed in response that there can be no comparison between the two because bin Laden ‘did not face any trial in any court of law across the globe.’
Mehta then said, ‘I think the US was correct.’
Justice Mridul refused to comment.
On May 24, 2022, a trial court had awarded life imprisonment to Malik after holding him guilty of various offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.
The life term was awarded for two offences section 121 (waging war against government of India) of IPC and section 17 (raising funds for terrorist act) of the UAPA.
Under section 121 (waging war against the State) of the IPC, the minimum punishment is life imprisonment while the maximum is death.
The bench also asked for a mention in the order of charge that Malik had caused the death of public functionaries and abducted individuals to force the government to do something.
The Solicitor-General, on a specific query, argued that Malik had killed four Indian Air Force (IAF) officers and also abducted the daughter of the Home Minister then, in return for the release of terrorists, who later went on to plan the 26/11 terror attacks.
Malik was convicted after pleading guilty to charges related to terror funding, spreading terrorism and secessionist activities in Kashmir in 2017.
Even though Malik was convicted for waging war against the State, the court at the time noted that his case did not warrant the death penalty, as it did not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ crimes.
The court had also said that the issue of genocide of the Kashmiri Pandits and their exodus was a separate argument that could not be produced in this case or the bench be swayed by its inclusion.