A special National Investigative Agency (NIA) court in New Delhi sentenced prominent Kashmiri separatist leader Aasiya Andrabi to three life terms on March 24. The court also handed 30-year prison sentences to her associates, 36-year-old Sofi Fehmeeda and 61-year-old Nahida Nasreen.
The three women, all members of the banned organization Dukhtaran-e-Millat, were arrested in 2018. Prosecutors charged them under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), India’s primary anti-terrorism statute, and the Indian Penal Code.
In his 290-page ruling, Judge Chander Jit Singh acquitted the women of the most serious charges, including financing terrorism and participating in armed rebellion. The court found no evidence linking the defendants to specific violent acts or the direct funding of insurgency.
Criminalizing ideology
Despite the lack of evidence for violent crimes, the court convicted the defendants on charges of provoking hostility between communities and undermining national integration. The judgment argued that while the women did not directly incite violence, their rhetoric seeded the idea that Kashmir is illegally occupied by India.
"The acts of the convict brought on record may not apparently be the direct cause of inciting violence but infusing the minds of Kashmiris... with the idea that Kashmir is not part of India... can evoke the sentiments of the people," the judgment stated.
Legal experts argue the verdict signals a shift in how Indian courts handle political dissent. Since the 2019 amendments to the UAPA, authorities have gained broader powers to designate individuals as terrorists and criminalize political speech.
"Ideology is not punishable by law; only actions are," said a Kashmir-based legal researcher who requested anonymity due to safety concerns. "The law has been deliberately designed to perform this precise task" of criminalizing separatist views.
Critics contend that the sentencing of Andrabi, who is 64, follows a broader pattern of using aggressive judicial measures to silence dissenting voices in the disputed territory. The defense maintains that the conviction is based primarily on the exercise of free speech rather than criminal conduct.
