Supreme Court Orders Yasin Malik To Appear Before It Through VC, Hints At Allowing His Virtual Cross Examination In IAF Personnel Killing Case
The Supreme Court today permitted the virtual appearance of separatist leader Yasin Malik in a case related to the killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had moved the Apex Court, challenging a Jammu court's order requiring Malik’s physical production for witness examination. Malik, currently serving a sentence in Tihar Jail after his conviction in a terror funding case, has resisted appearing via video conferencing (VC).
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter, with Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta representing the CBI.
Mehta informed the Court that the third Additional Sessions Judge in Jammu is “well-equipped with a VC setup," making a virtual examination feasible.
The Bench inquired about Malik’s legal representation, to which Mehta responded that Malik had refused legal assistance and had chosen to represent himself. Justice Oka then stated, “Now that this facility is in place, we can order for cross-examination through VC.”
The Court directed that Malik be informed of the order and appear virtually for the proceedings. It ordered the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Central Prison to ensure Malik’s presence through video conferencing on March 7.
“Tihar Jail has comprehensive facilities, and all necessary arrangements should be made,” the Court observed.
Mehta assured the Court that proper arrangements had been made, stating, “We have a separate courtroom where Hon’ble judges and lawyers can sit.”
Previous Hearing
On January 20, the Supreme Court had emphasized that effective cross-examination via VC is essential and directed the Registrar General of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to investigate and upgrade the system. "We have perused the observations made by the judge. At two places he has recorded that the video conference system in his court is not functioning properly. We direct Registrar General of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to look into what is stated by the learned judge and take immediate steps for installing a proper system through which hearing can be conducted by using video medium or video conference. The system should be such that there can be effective cross examination by using the system," the Bench had ordered.
The Court had ordered the Registrar General to submit a report on the improvements by February 17, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on February 21. "The Registrar General (RG) to do the needful and submit a report to this court after deputing any expert to examine the newly installed system. The report should be submitted by 17th of February. List on 21st of February," it had said.
Pertinently, on November 28, 2024, the Court was informed by the SG that a courtroom with all facilities, such as video conferencing, already exists in the jail in Delhi where Malik is lodged and that judicial proceedings have previously been held in that courtroom. Mehta had also informed the Court that the CBI has moved two applications before the Court. One asks for the transfer of trial to the jail in Delhi and the other one for amending the memo of parties and the cause title. Accordingly, the Court had issued notice to Malik.
The first case against Malik relates to the killing of four Indian Air Force officials in an attack in January 1990 in Rawalpora in district Srinagar. A special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Court in Jammu is hearing the matter. In September 2021, the Court issued a production warrant for Malik to appear physically, which the CBI has assailed before the Supreme Court.
The second relates to the abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed in 1989, the daughter of the then Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed.
Previously, the Special TADA Court in Jammu has offered legal aid to Yasin Malik, but he turned it down and insisted on his physical appearance in the hearing.
In the last hearing on November 21, Mehta said Malik has, in the past, shared dais with Hafiz Saeed to emphasise the security concerns of the State and that “he is not yet another terrorist.” The SGI stated that Malik’s request to personally cross examine witnesses is a “card up his sleeve” and that the State was willing to provide an advocate to represent him, but “he is refusing... We (the State) cannot go by the book in such cases.”
Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mohd. Yasin Malik [SLP(Crl) 5526-5527/2023]