SC gives 2 weeks to Yasin, others to reply on CBI’s trial transfer plea

As the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeks the transfer of trial in a case against Kashmiri separatist leader and JKLF chief Yasin Malik in connection with two cases, including the murder of 4 Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel in 1989, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked six co-accused to respond to the agency’s plea.

Asking the co-accused to file their replies in two weeks, a Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka posted the matter for further hearing on January 20, 2025.

The direction came after the Bench was told that one of the 10 accused has died while others have not filed their replies. “All the accused have to be heard if the trial is to be transferred,” Justice Oka said.

The CBI has challenged a Jammu court’s order for the physical production of Malik to face trial in the case. Currently lodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi, Malik insisted on being physically present in Jammu to cross-examine witnesses.

The Jammu Special Court has sought Malik's appearance for cross-examination of witnesses in two cases - the killing of four IAF personnel and abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of late Mufti Muhammad Sayeed -- a former Chief Minister of erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir — in 1989.

The top court had issued notice on the CBI’s petition in April 2023 and stayed the Jammu court’s order.

Noting that even 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case accused Ajmal Kasab was given fair trial in India, the Bench had on November 21 suggested setting up a court in jail to cross-examine Malik.

Describing him as “just not another terrorist”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had last month said, “We do not want to take him to Jammu and Kashmir because of the offence in which he has been convicted…The Government cannot go by the book in such cases.”

Malik was physically present in the Supreme Court during a hearing July 2023 after intimating jail authorities that he wanted to physically attend the hearing. Mehta had then written a strongly-worded letter to the Home Secretary highlighting that Malik's presence in the Supreme Court was a grave security lapse.