Delhi High Court adjourns plea filed by two Kashmiri separatists against seizure of property till April 26
Asiya Andrabi and Sofi Fehmeeda have filed a plea before the high court challenging the Patiala House Court's order that dismissed their appeals against the seizure of their house and car, respectively.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in an appeal filed by two Kashmiri separatists challenging the Patiala House Court's order that dismissed their appeals against the seizure of their house and car.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellants sought an adjournment as the main counsel was in some personal difficulty.
Acceding to the request, a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh adjourned the matter till April 26.
Notably, in August 2022 the court had sought the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) response to the plea filed by Kashmiri separatists Asiya Andrabi and Sofi Fehmeeda challenging NIA’s decision to seize their property in Jammu and Kashmir’s Srinagar.
Andrabi is the leader of the banned terrorist organization, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, which allegedly advocates for violent secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India. She is accused of violating the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
In 2019 the NIA issued attachments orders for the seizure of Andrabi's house and her associate Fehmeeda's car, alleging that these properties were proceeds of terrorism and were used to further terrorist activities.
Andrabi in her plea argued that the Patiala House Court, Delhi, rather than ruling on the legality of the challenged order, provided its own opinion on why the house should have been seized. She added that the special judge erroneously concluded that because she gave an interview in her home, it could be considered her office. She also claimed in the plea that giving an interview does not constitute terrorist activity.
Apart from that, Fahmeeda claimed that the special judge incorrectly concluded that driving a car is a terrorist act. "It is submitted that not every activity by a Proscribed Organization can be termed as a terrorist activity or a prohibited activity," Fahmeeda argued in her plea. She further added that the special judge assumed that the car was used for terrorist activities despite the lack of evidence.
Case Title: Sofia Fehmeeda v. NIA & Asiya Andrabi v. NIA
Statue: The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act