Delhi High Court Grants NIA Four Weeks to File Rejoinder in Yasin Malik Death Sentence Appeal

Law Notify : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted the National Investigation Agency a final four-week window to file its rejoinder to the response submitted by jailed Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik in his appeal against the death sentence awarded by the trial court.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja made it clear that no further adjournments would be allowed, citing the seriousness of the case and Malik’s prolonged incarceration. The Bench told the NIA that the time granted was final.

The proceedings arise from Malik’s statutory appeal challenging the sentence imposed in a terror-funding case linked to secessionist violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Malik has already been convicted under multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code for offences including criminal conspiracy, waging war against the Government of India, and funding terrorist activities.

Malik has approached the High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the proportionality of the death sentence. He has relied on the “rarest of rare” doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and further explained in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983).

The appeal also raises wider issues relating to sentencing discretion in terrorism-related cases, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings that stress individualised sentencing, consideration of mitigating factors, and the need for a meaningful hearing on sentence. These principles were reiterated in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) and State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014).

Once the pleadings are completed, the High Court is expected to take up the appeal for hearing on both conviction and sentence. The outcome is likely to have broader implications for capital punishment jurisprudence in terrorism cases prosecuted under special laws such as the UAPA, especially where the death penalty is imposed without a separate sentencing trial involving oral evidence.