New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court registrar general to look into the issue of non-functioning of video conferencing facilities at a special court in Jammu and ensure proper facilities for the hearing in the 1989 Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping and the 1990 Srinagar shootout cases involving separatist leader Yasin Malik, who is currently lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also directed the Delhi High Court registrar general to ensure proper video conferencing facilities at Tihar Jail where Malik is serving a life sentence in a terror funding case.
Apex Court was hearing a plea filed by CBI
The bench asked both the registrar of both the high courts to file their status reports on February 18 and listed the matter for further hearing on February 21.
The apex court bench was hearing a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking transfer of trial of cases involving Malik and others from the Jammu court to Delhi on grounds of security.
What has CBI submitted?
The CBI has submitted before the top court that there were security concerns on taking Malik from Tihar Jail to the Jammu court for the trial in the cases, as he was a threat to national security and he cannot be allowed to be taken to the Jammu court.
The central agency earlier told the top court that there is a fully functional court in Delhi’s Tihar Jail complex itself with all facilities of videoconferencing also and he need not be physically produced before the Jammu court.
The apex court earlier on December 18 last year, while hearing the CBI’s plea, gave two-week to Malik and five others to respond to the CBI’s plea seeking to transfer the trial in two terror cases from Jammu to the national capital.
What did the apex court say earlier?
The top court, while hearing the matter earlier, had noted that all the accused persons in the cases had to be heard before it passes an order to transfer the trial from the Jammu court to the national capital and had directed the CBI to amend its petition and implead all accused persons as respondents in the matter. The CBI subsequently amended its plea and impleaded all accused persons as respondents.
