SG flags security lapse as Yasin appears in SC, probe ordered

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was considering an appeal filed by the CBI, challenging the order of a designated court in Jammu directing his physical presence in connection with the case of killing of four IAF personnel and abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed in 1989. The SC had stayed the designated court’s order on April 24, 2023.

As soon as the matter was taken up, the bench informed that Justice Dutta is recusing from the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta took serious objection to Malik being brought from the prison and termed it a “heavy security issue”. He added that there is an order under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code operating against him.

The provision allows the state government to direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained. The SG said that administrative measures would be put in place to ensure that it is not repeated.

Justice Surya Kant said Malik could appear through video conferencing if necessary.

The SG said the prosecution is ready for this but Malik is not agreeing. Later in the day, Mehta is learnt to have written to Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla highlighting the developments and terming it a “serious security lapse”.

The SG, sources pointed out, said “…Malik who is not only a convict in terror funding case but has known connections with terror organisations in Pakistan could have escaped, could have been forcibly taken away or could have been killed” and that it could even have put the top court’s security to serious risk.

Referring to the Section 268 order, the senior law officer said that so long as it subsisted, “jail authorities had no power to bring him out of jail premises nor did they have any reason to do so”.

Mehta further said that he checked with the security officer accompanying Malik but he only had a printed notice in a general format of the SC which is sent with regard to parties in every case. “The…notice informs the recipients of the notice to appear before the Court either in person or through an authorised Advocate” and is “not either the permission of the” SC “to bring a convict facing an order under section 268 of CrP Code…out of jail nor it is requiring mandatory personal presence of the recipient of the order”.

The law officer urged the Home Secretary to take suitable action in the matter.

Meanwhile, Beniwal said Malik was produced in court by officials of Central Jail number 7 due to what prima facie was observed to be a lapse.

The DG ordered a detailed inquiry in the matter, to be conducted by Deputy Inspector General (Prison Headquarters) Rajiv Singh, to fix the responsibility of erring officials seeking a report within three days.

A senior jail official said, “There was some miscommunication with the documentation of Malik’s records due to which jail officials ended up communicating to the Delhi Police Battalion, which escorts prisoners to the courts, to take him to the Supreme Court for physical production…an internal committee will now probe as to how many jail officials were involved in the lapse and disciplinary proceedings will accordingly be initiated.”