India on Wednesday strongly rejected Pakistan’s remarks on the sentencing of Kashmiri separatist leader Asiya Andrabi, asserting that Islamabad has no locus standi to comment on India’s internal matters or judicial processes.
Responding to a statement issued by Pakistan’s Foreign Office, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India “categorically rejects” any comments made in support of a banned terrorist organisation and its members.
He stated that Pakistan’s reaction was not surprising, alleging a long-standing pattern of support for terrorism. “Instead of peddling lies and frivolous narratives, Pakistan should introspect on the grave and systematic human rights violations it continues to perpetrate,” the MEA said.
The response came a day after a Delhi court sentenced Andrabi to life imprisonment in a terror-related case. Two of her associates, Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen, were awarded 30-year jail terms.
The order was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh at the Karkardooma Courts, who observed that the actions of the convicts struck at the “very existence of India” and were aimed at the secession of Jammu and Kashmir.
The court noted that the accused had not abhorred violence and had instead indirectly promoted it by glorifying militants and propagating secessionist ideology. It further observed that such narratives could influence youth and potentially lead to violent actions.
The case stems from a 2018 investigation by the National Investigation Agency into the activities of the banned outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM), founded by Andrabi. According to the prosecution, the group used social media, public speeches, and other platforms to advocate for Jammu and Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan.
Andrabi was convicted under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including charges related to conspiracy for terrorist acts and membership of a terrorist organisation, along with offences under the Indian Penal Code such as criminal conspiracy and waging war against the state.
The court rejected pleas for leniency, stating that activities aimed at destabilising the nation and promoting secessionist ideology warranted stringent punishment.
