NEW DELHI: National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed a rejoinder to the reply affidavit submitted by incarcerated Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chief Yasin Malik, in which he stated that he had visited Pakistan and contacted militant leaders there at the behest of some officials of the Government of India. Malik is contesting the NIA’s plea seeking enhancement of his sentence before the Delhi High Court. A trial court had earlier awarded him life imprisonment in the case.
The NIA, in its response, has rejected his claims and defended the findings of the trial. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for July 21. Here are the point-by-point details of Yasin Malik’s affidavit and the NIA’s reply.
1. Circumstances of detention and arrest
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik states that his interaction with authorities began with what he describes as a routine phone call from Srinagar police on February 22, 2019, followed by a summons to the SSP’s office. He claims he was initially treated as a “state guest” before being formally detained under the Public Safety Act. He asserts that he was later flown to Delhi as a regular passenger and produced before a judge in an unusual manner, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the process.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA states that Malik was arrested on April 10, 2019, in connection with a registered case involving conspiracy, terror funding, and secessionist activities. It does not engage with the narrative of “state guest” treatment or travel details, terming such assertions beyond the scope of the case. It emphasizes that the arrest and subsequent proceedings were part of a legally instituted investigation under the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act provisions.
2. Allegations of coercion and pressure
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik alleges that once the NIA took over, he was subjected to coercion, including being confronted with co-accused Zahoor Watali and pressured to accept allegations related to terror funding. He claims that investigative agencies attempted to extract confessions and build a narrative against him through intimidation.
NIA’s reply:
The agency dismisses these allegations as baseless and an “afterthought,” pointing out that they have been raised several years after the events. It maintains that Malik was treated as per procedure, including regular medical check-ups, and that no such complaints were recorded at the relevant time. It terms these claims as lacking evidentiary value.
3. Denial of legal representation
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik claims he was denied the opportunity to consult a lawyer before being taken to Delhi and that he was transferred without legal assistance, which he describes as a violation of due process and principles of justice.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA counters that Malik was offered legal aid but chose to represent himself during the proceedings. It states that this was a conscious and voluntary decision by the accused and cannot be construed as a denial of legal rights.
4. Custodial conditions and health
Yasin Malik’s plea:
He alleges inhuman treatment in custody, including solitary confinement, lack of proper medical care, and deterioration of health. He claims that conditions in Tihar Jail, including high-security wards, were degrading and violative of basic rights.
NIA’s reply:
The agency rejects these claims, stating that issues relating to jail conditions, health, and treatment are unrelated to the merits of the case. It also maintains that Malik underwent regular medical examinations and no adverse condition was reported, thereby disputing allegations of neglect or abuse.
5. Fairness of trial and judicial process
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik questions the fairness of the judicial process, alleging that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself and that the proceedings were influenced. He claims that his decision to argue without counsel stemmed from a lack of trust in the system.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA asserts that court records show Malik voluntarily chose to argue his own case despite persuasion to accept legal aid. It states that the trial followed due process and that his conviction is based on evidence and his own plea of guilt.
6. Political engagement and shift to non-violence
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik outlines his political journey, stating that after early militancy, he adopted a non-violent path in 1994 and engaged in dialogue with successive Indian governments, diplomats, and civil society actors. He cites meetings with senior leaders and participation in peace processes as evidence of his transformation.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA describes these narratives as attempts to gain public sympathy. It argues that references to meetings with politicians, diplomats, and public figures are irrelevant to the charges and do not negate his alleged role in the conspiracy or his past involvement in militancy.
7. Denial of terror links and funding allegations
Yasin Malik’s plea:
He denies involvement in terror funding, militancy, or conspiracy, and claims that allegations linking him to separatist funding networks and militant groups are fabricated and politically motivated.
NIA’s reply:
The agency reiterates that Malik’s role in the conspiracy was established during the investigation and trial. It states that evidence showed involvement of separatist leaders and terror outfits in raising and channeling funds, and that Malik, as head of JKLF-Y, was part of this network.
8. Past militancy and criminal record
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik acknowledges phases of militancy but emphasizes his later commitment to non-violence, arguing that past actions cannot be used to frame current charges without fresh evidence.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA points out that Malik himself admitted to being the commander-in-chief of JKLF and that he has faced multiple militancy-related cases. It highlights that he was granted bail in several such cases, which, according to the agency, reflects a history of involvement in militancy.
9. Kashmir Pandit exodus and 1990s violence
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik rejects allegations linking him to genocide or forced migration of Kashmiri Pandits, asserting that the exodus resulted from broader political and security circumstances and not his actions.
NIA’s reply:
The agency terms these claims as emotional and based on personal perceptions. It states that such narratives are not relevant to the case at hand and do not require a response.
10. Stone-pelting and 2016 unrest
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik claims he was in custody during key periods of unrest in 2016 and therefore could not have orchestrated stone-pelting or protests. He invokes the plea of alibi and denies involvement.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA maintains that the court has already examined his role in such activities and that he has been convicted. It says the matter cannot be reopened at this stage.
11. Links with militants and separatist networks
Yasin Malik’s plea:
He denies operational or ideological links with militant groups and argues that references to such links are misinterpreted or taken out of context.
NIA’s reply:
The agency asserts that Malik had connections with militants, including Hafiz Saeed, and that these were established during the investigation and accepted by the trial court. It says such findings cannot be revisited.
12. Timing and admissibility of claims
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik raises objections to investigation methods, evidence, and prosecution narrative at the appellate stage, arguing that these issues affect the legitimacy of his conviction.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA argues that Malik failed to raise many of these objections during the trial and that raising them now is legally untenable. It stresses that the conviction, based on his guilty plea, stands.
13. Overall conclusion
Yasin Malik’s plea:
Malik presents himself as a political actor who transitioned to non-violence and is now being targeted through the misuse of legal processes. He seeks judicial intervention, alleging injustice and procedural violations.
NIA’s reply:
The NIA characterizes Malik’s affidavit as a collection of “emotional expressions” and irrelevant narratives. It maintains that the conviction is legally sound, the allegations have been proven, and the issues raised do not warrant reconsideration at this stage.
Have you liked the news article?