A Delhi court on Tuesday sentenced Kashmiri separatist leader Asiya Andrabi, founder of the banned women’s separatist group Dokhtaran Milla, to life imprisonment while two of her accomplices were sentenced to 30 years in prison, on charges of running a terrorist organization conspiring to secede Kashmir from the country. The court held that showing any amount of leniency to the convicts would encourage their spirit to seek the secession of an integral part of the country.
On January 14, Justice Chanderjit Singh convicted Andrabi, along with Sufi Fehmida and Nahida Nasreen, under several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that they ran a terrorist organization aimed at the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India.
The court found that the accused had no loyalty to the Indian Constitution and were unwilling to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of the country. She noted that they used various media platforms to spread insurgent propaganda and hate speech that endangers national security.
The defendants were also convicted under the penal sections of criminal conspiracy and conspiracy to commit crimes relating to waging war against the government and promoting hostility between different groups on the basis of religion, race, cause and place of birth.
The NIA arrested Andarabi and her associates in 2018 for allegedly running a terrorist organization and using various media platforms to spread insurgent propaganda and hate speech threatening the safety, security and sovereignty of India.
In a 28-page order on Tuesday, Justice Singh asserted: “Any leniency on conviction has the potential to send a message to others who have similar ideas that they can get away with such acts by imprisonment for several years and may promote ideas of causing secession of a part of India.”
Referring to the 2012 Supreme Court decision that upheld the death sentence of 2008 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab, the court said a similar situation had arisen in the present case as no repentance had been shown by any of the convicts who claimed to be proud of their actions.
Although the court accepted the defense’s argument that there was no evidence to prove that the convicts used violence, it said that they indirectly encouraged the use of violence by “eulogizing the murdered terrorists.”
She added: “Instilling in the minds of Kashmiris, especially the youth, the idea that Kashmir is not part of India and that India has occupied Kashmir illegally and in a hostile manner, could arouse the feelings of the people of Kashmir, and could also prompt them to use all kinds of methods, including violence, in pursuit of the supposed liberation, which this idea had wrongly implanted in their minds.”
The court added that the fact that the convicts were educated individuals increased responsibility for the consequences of their actions rather than reducing them, and also showed that they had made an informed decision and not an instinctive decision to threaten the country’s sovereignty.
Justice Singh justified the size of the sentences, saying that Andrabi was the leader of the conspiracy while her two colleagues were ground soldiers.
The NIA, represented by Public Prosecutor Kanchan, requested the maximum penalty for these crimes, which is life imprisonment. The prosecutor had told the court that given the growing threat of separatist movements and terrorist financing, it was necessary to send a stern message through Andrabi’s case that conspiring against the state would warrant the harshest punishment.
It is worth noting that for the crimes stipulated in Articles 18, 38 and 39 of the Anti-Corruption Law, the law provides for a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.
Given their direct incitement to violence, and the serious threat they pose to large swaths of society, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment is merely proportionate, the federal agency said.
Meanwhile, Asia and others, represented by senior advocate Satish Tamta and advocate Sharq Iqbal, have demanded a lenient sentence, limiting the sentence for the period he has already served in prison. They said the convicts had already undergone nearly eight years of imprisonment since July 6, 2018, and their behavior inside the prison was reported to be good. The defense lawyers maintained that the convicts were engaging in social activity and ideological expression regarding the situation in Kashmir.
“The Kashmir issue did not originate with the convicts and does not end with them… Their activities are essentially an expression of opinion and commentary on ongoing social and political developments and are not acts aimed at causing violence,” the advocates said. Highlighting the mitigating circumstances, they added that the convicts were supporting and running schools and NGOs in Kashmir and campaigning against drug abuse among its youth.
Soon after their conviction, the case descended into a legal deadlock, with questions arising over who would hear and issue an order on the quantum of punishment, with Family Court Judge Chanderjit Singh, who had issued the conviction order in his capacity as an NIA judge, being transferred to the Karkardooma Courts, his current position.
The issue was eventually resolved after special NIA judge Prashant Sharma returned the case to Singh, holding that legal precedents prevented him from hearing arguments on the verdict in the case.
