The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has urged the Delhi High Court to conduct in-camera proceedings in its plea seeking the death penalty for Yasin Malik, the Kashmiri separatist leader and chief of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Malik is currently serving a life sentence in a terror-funding case.
Appearing via video conference from Tihar Jail, Malik told the Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain that he has been living under “mental agony for the last three years” amid the uncertainty surrounding his fate.
The NIA, emphasizing the sensitivity and security implications of the case, requested the court to restrict public access and permit only a private virtual hearing link. The Delhi High Court took note of the agency’s request and scheduled the next hearing for January 28, 2026.
The NIA has challenged the 2022 trial court judgment that sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to multiple charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the agency, pleading guilty should not serve as a shield against capital punishment for those convicted of grave acts of terrorism. The NIA warned that allowing such a precedent could “erode the sentencing policy” and embolden others accused of terrorism to exploit legal loopholes.
The trial court, while rejecting the NIA’s earlier demand for the death penalty, had described Malik’s actions as an assault on the “heart of the idea of India”, saying his intent was to forcibly separate Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
Representing himself in court, Malik has continued to appear virtually since August 2024, following a security directive prohibiting his physical presence.
In a separate and ongoing case, Malik also faces charges for his alleged role in the 1990 killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel in Srinagar. A retired IAF officer, who survived the attack, has identified Malik as the main shooter in the incident.
As the legal battle continues, the case remains one of the most closely watched and politically sensitive trials in recent memory — testing not just India’s counter-terrorism framework, but also its approach toward justice, rehabilitation, and the limits of clemency.
