NEW DELHI (Kashmir English): In a fresh attempt to bolster the waning political standing of the Modi-led Hindutva regime, the Indian National Investigation Agency (NIA) has moved the Delhi High Court to conduct an in-camera hearing on its petition seeking the death penalty for the incarcerated Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Chairman, Muhammad Yasin Malik.
According to Kashmir Media Service, the NIA made the request before a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, citing what it called the “sensitivity and security concerns” of the case. The court has fixed January 28, 2026, for hearing the arguments on the agency’s plea.
Yasin Malik, appearing via video link from New Delhi’s Tihar Jail, expressed deep anguish over the prolonged delay in the proceedings.
“It’s been three years since the NIA filed the appeal. Keeping a person in limbo about whether he will be awarded the death sentence or not is psychological torture,” he told the court.
The NIA, in its petition, argued that Malik’s life sentence should be converted to capital punishment, claiming that allowing him to escape the death penalty on the grounds of pleading guilty would “erode sentencing policy.”
Legal experts and rights defenders, however, have termed the move as part of India’s political vendetta aimed at silencing the genuine leadership of Kashmir.
Yasin Malik a symbol of resistance
Malik, a symbol of Kashmir’s political resistance, was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 24, 2022, under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a politically-motivated case.
He has spent years in solitary confinement in Tihar Jail, where his health has reportedly deteriorated.
The NIA’s latest move to seek a closed-door trial has triggered widespread outrage in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where political and civil society circles view it as a desperate attempt by the Modi regime to suppress the Kashmiri leadership through judicial persecution.
The Tihar Jail authorities and Indian agencies claim the hearing’s secrecy is necessary for “security reasons,” but rights advocates say the move is meant to conceal the absence of transparency and fairness in the case of Yasin Malik.
