Yasin Malik, the leader of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and a convicted Kashmiri separatist, has petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking medical treatment for cardiac and kidney ailments.

He has emphasized the necessity of being transported to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for the required medical treatment.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta directed the legal representative of Yasin Malik to ascertain whether Malik is open to receiving treatment either from the medical board appointed by AIIMS or from doctors of his personal preference.

The proceedings for this case are scheduled to resume on February 14.

Yasin Malik has requested instructions to be referred to AIIMS or another specialized hospital for his medical treatment. The Central government strongly opposed the petition, challenging its legitimacy. The government argued that Malik doesn't need hospital admission but should be treated as an Outpatient Department (OPD) patient.

Advocate Rajat Nair, representing the government, informed the bench that AIIMS had formed a medical board to assess Yasin Malik via video conference. However, Malik declined to engage with the board for examination.

Nair asserted that Yasin Malik is categorized as a "very, very high-risk prisoner" and assured that he would receive comprehensive medical facilities within the confines of the jail. The Court acknowledged this submission and instructed Malik's counsel to gather further instructions on the matter.

During this period, the Tihar jail authorities have been directed to ensure that Yasin Malik receives necessary treatment within the jail hospital premises. Currently serving a life sentence in a terror funding case, Malik is incarcerated in Tihar jail. An appeal from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking the death penalty for him is awaiting consideration by the Delhi High Court.

Yasin Malik was found guilty of offenses under Section 120B, 121, 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13 and 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), along with Section 120B of the IPC. Additionally, he was convicted under Sections 17, 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA. In a comprehensive judgment, the NIA Court noted that Malik deviated from the government's positive intentions by opting for a violent course of action.

The special court emphasized, "Betraying the good intentions of the government, he took a different path to orchestrate violence under the guise of political struggle. The evidence, on the basis of which charges were framed and to which the convict has pleaded guilty, speaks otherwise." The judge dismissed Malik's assertion that he had adopted a Gandhian approach after 1994.