Delhi Court Convicts Kashmiri Separatist Leader Yasin Malik In Terror Funding Case
The conviction of Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik in a terror funding case, along with relevant legal provisions and case laws:
📌 Background of the Case
Yasin Malik, the chief of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), was arrested in 2019 by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with a terror funding case.
The NIA charged Malik with receiving funds from Pakistan to carry out terrorist activities and stone-pelting during the Kashmir unrest, especially in 2010 and 2016.
The charges against Malik included:
Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Terrorist acts.
Section 17 of UAPA: Raising funds for terrorist acts.
Section 18 of UAPA: Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Section 38 of UAPA: Membership of a terrorist organization.
Section 39 of UAPA: Support to a terrorist organization.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Criminal conspiracy.
Section 121A of IPC: Waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India.
⚖️ Court Proceedings and Conviction
On May 19, 2022, a special NIA court in Delhi convicted Yasin Malik after he pleaded guilty to all charges, including those under the stringent UAPA and IPC.
The court imposed the following sentences:
Two life sentences.
Five sentences of 10 years each, all to run concurrently.
A monetary penalty of over ₹10 lakh.
The NIA had sought the death penalty, but Malik's guilty plea and cooperation influenced the court's decision to impose life imprisonment instead.
Malik's defense argued that he had been allowed a passport by the Indian government in the past, suggesting he was not considered a criminal by various governments.
📜 Legal Provisions Involved
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): A stringent anti-terror law in India that allows for the prosecution of individuals involved in terrorist activities and support thereof.
Indian Penal Code (IPC): The primary criminal code of India, under which various offenses, including conspiracy and waging war against the government, are defined.
🧑⚖️ Relevant Case Laws
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The Supreme Court held that a person can be convicted under the UAPA if there is sufficient evidence to prove involvement in terrorist activities.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the UAPA, emphasizing its importance in combating terrorism.
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008): The Court reiterated that membership in a terrorist organization and support to such organizations are punishable offenses under the UAPA.
📌 International Reactions
Pakistan's Response: The Pakistani government condemned the sentencing as a "sham trial" and described it as an "abhorrent attempt" by the Indian government to deprive the Kashmiri people of their true leadership.
Human Rights Concerns: Various international human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the fairness of the trial and the treatment of Yasin Malik during the proceedings.
✅ Key Takeaways
Yasin Malik's conviction underscores India's commitment to combating terrorism and prosecuting individuals involved in terror funding and related activities.
The case highlights the application of stringent laws like the UAPA in addressing national security threats.
International reactions reflect the geopolitical sensitivities surrounding the Kashmir issue and the broader implications of such legal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments