Sentencing Arguments Delayed in Aasiya Andrabi UAPA Case Amid Jurisdiction Confusion
In a significant legal development, arguments on the sentencing of Kashmiri separatist leader Aasiya Andrabi and her two associates could not commence on Wednesday due to unresolved questions over jurisdiction. The trio was convicted last month under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for conspiring to wage war against India and for membership in a terrorist organization, but the sentencing process remains in a deadlock.
Background of the Case and Conviction
Andrabi, the founder of the women's separatist organization Dukhtaraan-e-Millat, along with her aides Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen, were arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2018. On January 14, additional sessions judge Chanderjit Singh found them guilty in this high-profile case. However, the sentencing has been stalled, pending clarity on which court has the authority to proceed.
Jurisdictional Impasse Stemming from Judge Transfer
The impasse dates back to November 2025, when judge Singh was transferred from the NIA court to the Karkardooma family courts. Since the verdict in the case had already been reserved, he retained the file and convicted the trio last month. The confusion over sentencing resurfaced after the matter was transferred back to Singh by NIA court judge Prashant Sharma, who had earlier ruled that the judge delivering the conviction should also decide the quantum of punishment.
Singh had been hearing the case since 2024 before his transfer. However, since the case falls within the NIA court's jurisdiction, his current posting as a family court judge has added to the procedural complexity. This has raised critical questions about whether the judgment passed on January 14 includes both conviction and sentencing, or if sentencing must be handled separately by the appropriate court.
Legal Precedents and Future Proceedings
The Delhi High Court had previously held in another case that where a sessions case had been heard in its entirety, the predecessor judge was duty-bound to pronounce the judgment. This precedent adds weight to the argument that Singh should complete the sentencing, but the jurisdictional overlap complicates matters. The next hearing is scheduled for February 17, 2026, where the court will determine how to proceed further on this matter.
The delay highlights the procedural challenges in high-stakes terrorism cases, especially when judicial transfers occur mid-trial. It underscores the need for clear guidelines to ensure that convictions are followed by timely sentencing without legal ambiguities.
