Yasin Malik appears in SC, top law officer flags major lapse

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta sought action on how jailed Malik was allowed to step out in the absence of any order or authorisation from the court

Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) leader Yasin Malik, who is undergoing life sentence in a terror funding case at Tihar Jail, appeared in the Supreme Court under police escort on Friday, with the solicitor general Tushar Mehta terming it a “major security lapse” in a letter written to the Union home secretary.

Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chief Yasin Malik at the Supreme Court on Friday. (PTI)

Watch: Supreme Court Security Breach; Yasin Malik Walks Into Court Without Permission | Details

Mehta sought action on how Malik was allowed to step out in the absence of any order or authorisation from the court warranting his presence.

In the letter addressed to home secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, Mehta said, “It is my firm view that this is a serious security lapse.” He urged the secretary to take the matter seriously and initiate suitable action.

Malik arrived at the court a little before noon to appear in an appeal filed by CBI which challenged a September 2022 order passed by a Jammu TADA court requiring his personal presence in the trial into the killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel in Srinagar in 1990, and the 1989 abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of then Union minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed.

HT reached out to the home ministry which did not respond to queries seeking a comment.

On April 24, the top court stayed the Jammu court’s order and issued notice to the respondents, including Malik to appear either in person or through a lawyer. The order,however, did not seek his personal presence.

When the matter was taken up by a bench of justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta, the solicitor general flagged his concern about Malik’s presence in the matter. He said, “In view of an order issued by Centre under Section 268 of CrPC, he (Malik) cannot come out of jail. Moreover, if he wishes to argue in person, he requires permission of the Supreme Court Registry. He cant be brought out of jail in this manner.” Section 268 CrPC enables the Centre or a state government to issue an order directing a person not to be removed from the prison as long as the order is in force. The bench said, “We have only passed an order staying the direction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (TADA/POTA). There is no other order.”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who appeared for CBI along with solicitor general told the court, “The order of this court is sought to be misused. The callous manner in which he (Malik) has been brought to Court is a grave security risk.” When the bench told the two law officers that convicts can virtually attend the proceedings, Mehta said, “We will take care he is not brought out and the order under Section 268 CrPC is fully complied with.”

Officials said the SC Registry received a letter by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Tihar Prisons on May 26, requesting the court to permit Malik to appear in person. The Registry did not reply to the letter. DG of Delhi Prisons Sanjay Baniwal said he has ordered an inquiry into the matter.

“Today (July 21), Yasin Malik was produced physically in the Supreme Court in the matter SLP No. 5526-5527/2022 Titled CBI Vs. Yasin Malik, by the officials of Central Jail no. 7 (Tihar). Prima facie, it was a lapse on the part of concerned Jail officials. An inquiry by deputy IG (headquarters-Prisons) has been ordered to fix accountability of errant officials,” Baniwal said in an official order.

He has ordered the report to be submitted within three days.

The officials quote above said the notice sent by the top court on April 24 was taken as a notice seeking personal appearance as Malik chose not to be represented by a lawyer in the case. “Hundreds of such orders are received by the jail authorities. Such orders from the court are never construed to be an order requiring personal presence of a convict. And here, it was a case of a convict facing an order under Section 268 CrPC,” an officials said asking not to be named.