The Supreme Court on Thursday directed separatist leader Yasin Malik to file his response by December 14 on a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking transfer of two cases pending against him in Jammu, to New Delhi.
The order was passed by the Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
A Special Court in Jammu had directed Malik to remain present before it for cross-examination of witnesses in two cases. The first case related to the killing of four IAF personnel, while the second concerned the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of former Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed, in 1989.
CBI challenged this order of the Jammu court on the grounds that there were security risks involved if Malik were to be moved out of Tihar jail (Delhi) and taken to Jammu.
The Apex Court had earlier suggested that a makeshift courtroom could be set up in jail to physically cross-examine Malik, instead of taking him to Jammu for trial in the pending cases.
Appearing for CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today apprised the Bench that a fully-functional courtroom, equipped with videoconference (VC) facilities, was already functional in Tihar jail. In the past, proceedings have taken place in that courtroom, he added.
The SG said that the national agency had filed two applications in the matter, including transfer of cases against Malik to Delhi.
Earlier in April 2023, the top court of the country had stayed the Jammu trial court order.
Malik had appeared physically in the Supreme Court in July 2023 to attend the proceedings, after intimating jail authorities that he wanted to physically attend the hearing. Justice Dipankar Datta had recused from hearing the case.
After the incident, SG Mehta wrote a strongly-worded letter to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla, stating that Malik’s presence in the Supreme Court was a grave security lapse.
Malik had recently moved the Delhi High Court, seeking its intervention to seek medical treatment at AIIMS. The separatist leader claimed that the authorities were preventing his physical production before courts under the ‘garb’ of an order passed under Section 268 (orders preventing the removal of persons from jail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petition filed by Malik in the Delhi High Court sought revoking of Section 268 communication and direction to the authorities to produce him physically before courts, as and when his presence was required.