The Supreme Court in the case CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik observed wherein the judges are taken aback that the Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, who is undergoing life sentence in Tihar jail after who is being convicted in the terror funding case, which was being present in the Apex Court to appear in person before the court.
In the present case, the plea is moved by Malik by the Central Bureau of Investigation assailing orders of Special Court in Jammu whereby fresh production warrant was issued for Malik’s physical appearance. Therefore, the physical appearance of him seeking for the cross-examination of witnesses in relation to the killing of four IAF personnel; abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of Mufti Muhammad Sayeed in 1989.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has issued the notice in the case in April, 2023 wherein the court stayed the operation of impugned orders of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu TADA or POTA.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing the present matter.
The bench in the case observed and did not proceed with the matter as the bench of Justice Datta recused from hearing the same and the Judges of Supreme Court were shocked to see Malik appear in person even when no order seeking his physical appearance was passed by it.
The court observed that Malik had expressed the desire of him to the jail authorities to appear in person before the Apex Court and was accordingly brought out of jail. Therefore, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta assured the Bench that the administrative measures will be taken in order to ensure that he is not brought out of jail like this in the future.
Adding to it, it has been stated by him that it being the heavy security issue.
The counsel, Additional Solicitor General, SV Raju appearing for the CBI stated before the court that Malik was being brought out of jail callously by the jail authorities upon misinterpretation of the Apex Court’s order.
Further, before the court, he also seeks direction from the Bench to ensure that the act is not repeated in future.
The bench of Justice Kant in the case observed and has stated that it might be difficult in order to pass any such order as Justice Datta was recused and asked the ASG to seek such relief before the Bench.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration after 4 weeks.
