New Delhi: Hurriyat leader Mohammad Yasin Malik declined the Delhi High Court’s offer on Friday to appoint a lawyer of his choice to represent him in the case filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is seeking the death penalty against him.
Instead, Malik informed the Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia that he would represent himself.
Previously, the Court had suggested that Malik could either choose his own lawyer or have the court appoint an amicus curiae to argue on his behalf.
However, Malik, appearing via video conference, reiterated that he did not want any legal representation, stating, “In the trial court, I argued myself. I will argue myself because I know this case much better. I don’t want any lawyer here either.
Malik also emphasised his preference to appear in person before the Court rather than through video conferencing.
The Bench, however, pointed out that a previous High Court order required his appearance via video conference due to security concerns and advised Malik that he could challenge this order in the Supreme Court if he wished. Malik expressed no interest in doing so.
The Court subsequently recorded Malik’s refusal to respond to the NIA’s plea or submit a written reply, but noted that he could reconsider his decision and inform the Court at the next hearing on September 15.
The NIA has appealed against a trial court’s decision to sentence Malik to life imprisonment, after he pleaded guilty to charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
In May 2022, the special NIA Court ruled that Malik had betrayed the government’s goodwill by choosing a path of violence, rejecting his claim of having adopted Gandhian principles after 1994.
The NIA’s request for the death penalty was previously denied by the trial court, which ruled that such a sentence should only be imposed in cases that shock the collective conscience of society.
The NIA then appealed to the High Court seeking the death penalty. On May 29, the Court issued notice regarding the appeal.
