A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court has directed that the judge who originally convicted a Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) separatist leader should also decide the sentence in the case. This decision pertains to the case of Asiya Andrabi, the chief of the women's terror outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DEM), and two others who were convicted on January 14 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Special Judge Chanderjit Singh, who delivered the conviction, had been transferred from the NIA court to the Karkardooma courts in November 2025. However, because the judgment was pending, he retained the case file to pronounce the verdict. The NIA court clarified on Monday that Judge Singh, as the predecessor judge, will hear the arguments regarding the sentencing of Andrabi and her associates.
Asiya Andrabi and her associates were convicted for offenses including conspiracy to wage war against the country and being members of a terrorist organization, as defined under the UAPA. Andrabi was arrested in 2018 and accused of disseminating insurrectionary content and hateful speeches online, posing a threat to India's sovereignty and security. The NIA alleged that Andrabi and her accomplices conspired to destabilize India and sought support from terrorist entities based in Pakistan.
The NIA has been actively involved in contesting terror-related cases and has also been seeking the death penalty for individuals involved in terror activities. For instance, the NIA has sought the death penalty for JKLF chief Yasin Malik in connection with the killings of four Indian Air Force personnel in 1990. In May 2022, a NIA court sentenced Yasin Malik to life imprisonment in a terror funding case. Furthermore, in January 2026, a special NIA court in Kolkata sentenced Syed M Idris to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for his role in a Pakistan-linked conspiracy involving the recruitment and radicalization of Muslim youths in West Bengal for the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
The transfer of Andrabi's case to the predecessor judge underscores the importance of continuity and consistency in judicial proceedings, especially in cases involving serious offenses like terrorism and secessionism. The decision ensures that the judge who presided over the trial and is familiar with the evidence and arguments presented will also determine the appropriate sentence. This approach is aimed at upholding justice and ensuring that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. The sentencing hearing is a crucial stage in the legal process, and the presence of the predecessor judge is expected to bring a deeper understanding of the case's nuances.