Today, the Supreme Court remarked that even 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab received a fair trial in India, as it heard the CBI's appeal against a Jammu court order directing separatist leader Yasin Malik to appear in person.

The case involves the killing of four Indian Air Force personnel on the outskirts of Srinagar in 1990, as well as the 1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed, the daughter of then Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed.

Yasin Malik is the primary accused in both incidents.

Yasin Malik is currently serving a life sentence in Delhi's Tihar Jail for a terror funding case. In 2022, a court handling cases under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act directed Malik to appear in person. Malik has expressed his willingness to appear in court.

However, the CBI has challenged the Jammu court's order, arguing that Malik’s physical presence could disrupt the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and pose a threat to witnesses testifying against him.

Appearing for the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih, "We do not want to take him to Jammu and Kashmir." Justice AS Oka asked, "But how can cross examination be done in VC (video conference)". The bench noted the poor Internet connectivity in Jammu.

Mr. Mehta stated that if Malik insists on appearing in person, the trial could be moved to Delhi. He also accused the separatist leader of "playing tricks" by insisting on his personal appearance in court.

The Solicitor General said Malik is "not just another terrorist". To this, Justice Oka said, "Take instructions how many witnesses are there in trial... in our country, a fair trial was given even to Ajmal Kasab". Mr Mehta said the government "cannot go by the books in such cases". "He (Malik) frequently travelled to Pakistan and shared dais with Hafeez Saeed," he said.

The bench agreed that a court could be established within the jail for the hearing. It directed the Centre to determine how many witnesses will testify and make arrangements for their security. "We need to assess how the judge will be assigned to the jail specifically for this court," the bench stated. The case will be heard again next Thursday.