Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty
A Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur granted four weeks to Malik to file his response to the NIA's petition while posting the hearing for November 10.
Malik, who previously sought to argue in-person against NIA's plea seeking the enhancement, was supposed to appear virtually from jail but was not produced. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief (JKLF) is lodged in Tihar jail where he is serving a life term in the case. On Monday, the Bench directed the jail authorities to produce him virtually on November 10.
On May 24, 2022, a trial court sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after holding him guilty for offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. Malik had pleaded guilty to the charges, including those under the UAPA, and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appealing against the sentence, the NIA emphasised that a terrorist cannot be sentenced life term just because he has pleaded guilty and chosen not to go through trial.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Not uncommon for husbands to suppress real income to avoid paying wives their due: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court recently stated that it was a common practice in matrimonial cases for husbands to suppress or conceal their real income to avoid paying their wives their legitimate dues. These observations were made while hearing a petition filed by Nidhi Jain against an order dated June 7, 2024, passed by a family court in Dwarka where her applications for summoning witnesses to prove her husband Ankit Jain's concealment of assets were dismissed. 'By seeking to summon the statements of accounts of family members of the respondent, the petitioner intends to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida property to establish that the said funds were used for the purchase of Shakti Nagar property by the respondent. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings,' the Justice said. 'Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial, but rather, they directly affect the determination of maintenance, which is a matter of subsistence,' Justice Dudeja added, while setting aside the order and directing the family court to permit Nidhi to summon the witnesses. Nidhi had claimed before the court that after her marriage in February 2012, she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his family to fulfill dowry demands. She also alleged that in November 2012, Ankit's family locked the matrimonial home and transferred her jewellery and cash to their accounts, deserting her without resources. She also contended that her husband had misrepresented his financial situation throughout the trial, falsely portraying himself as having no significant income or assets. She had submitted that Ankit had transferred assets to his family members to mislead the court and to avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues. One example, which she cited, was the sale of a property in Noida whose sale proceeds were transferred to his family members and later utilised to purchase another property. An application under Section 311 CrPC (power to summon material witness, or examine person present) was moved by Nidhi to prove these concealments and establish Ankit's true financial status, which was initially allowed by the family court. On June 6, 2024, the family court dismissed her petition to summon witnesses, which compelled her to move the High Court. On the other hand, Ankit's counsel had submitted in court that the witnesses sought to be summoned by Nidhi were not relevant to her case and that her actions were a deliberate attempt to delay the case. 'The Family Court's reliance on procedural history to justify its refusal, such as alleged delays and multiple applications, does not outweigh the petitioner's right to a fair opportunity to substantiate her claim,' the High Court ruled on July 31.
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Kerala moves Supreme Court against Governor's appointment of interim Vice-Chancellor to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
The Kerala Government on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) moved the Supreme Court in an application to rescind a notification issued by the Chancellor (Governor) on August 1 appointing Dr. K. Sivaprasad to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. In the case of the appointment of the temporary Vice-Chancellor of the university, law expressly provides for a role for the State Government. When the statute provides a mode of appointment, the same is binding on the Chancellor who is a creation of the very such statute,' the Kerala Government, represented by advocate C.K. Sasi, argued. Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act requires the Chancellor to act on the advice of the State Government. The November 27, 2024 notification, issued by the Chancellor, appointing Dr. K. Sivaprasad to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the university, ignoring the recommendation of the government and overlooking the statutory mandate providing for specific persons/officers to be entrusted with such powers, was 'void ab initio and per se illegal', the State contended. 'The provisions of the Act did not bestow any unfettered power or discretion on the Chancellor to appoint any person of his choice to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the university. The powers of the Chancellor in this regard are circumscribed by Section 13(7) of the Act. Moreover, the Chancellor could have acted under Section 13(7) of the Act only on the recommendation of the State Government,' Kerala contended. The Chancellor appointed Dr. K. Sivaprasad solely according to his choice and not based on the recommendation of the Government. The name was also beyond the zone of choice statutorily prescribed. The Chancellor had also acted in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 2022, which mandated that the Chancellor could not overlook the authority of the State Government to recommend any qualified name for appointment as temporary Vice-Chancellor.
Hans India
8 minutes ago
- Hans India
Delhi HC gets new judge, strength increases to 44
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday got a new judge with the swearing-in of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya administered oath of office to Justice Yadav, taking the strength of judges of the Delhi High Court to 44. The sanctioned strength of the high court is 60. The swearing-in ceremony was held in the high court premises. Justice Yadav, who was a retired judicial officer of the Delhi District judiciary, was elevated to the high court. He took the oath in Hindi. The Centre had on August 8 notified the appointment of the judicial officer as judge of the high court. In July, a total of nine judges had taken oath of office of the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium on July 28 had recommended the appointment of judicial officer Yadav as a judge of the Delhi High Court. His name was recommended seven months after his retirement.
