You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

Asiya Andrabi moves Delhi HC challenging seizure of Srinagar house, next hearing on September 28

The Financial Express logo The Financial Express 03-08-2022 Sayan Ganguly
Andrabi and Fehmeeda have moved the Delhi High Court challenging an order by the Patiala House court dismissing their appeal against the seizure of their house and car, respectively.(File/IE) © Provided by The Financial Express Andrabi and Fehmeeda have moved the Delhi High Court challenging an order by the Patiala House court dismissing their appeal against the seizure of their house and car, respectively.(File/IE)

Asiya Andrabi, hardliner Kashmiri separatist and chief of banned terrorist organisation Dukhtaran-e-Millat chief, has moved a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to seize her property in Jammu and Kashmir’s Srinagar. 

A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal, hearing the plea, issued notice to the NIA seeking its response on the plea and posted the matter for hearing on September 28.

Asiya Andrabi is the chief of banned terrorist organisation Dukhtaran-e-Millat which advocates the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India through violent means. She has been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Also Read: NIA registered 103 terror financing cases since 2008: Govt tells Lok Sabha

In a first such directive in Kashmir, the NIA had in 2019 passed attachment orders for the seizure of Andrabi’s house and the car of her associate Sofi Fehmeeda’s alleging that these properties are proceeds of terrorism and were used to further terrorist activities.

Andrabi and Fehmeeda have moved the Delhi High Court challenging an order by the Patiala House court dismissing their appeal against the seizure of their house and car, respectively. Andrabi has argued in her plea that the Patiala House court, instead of deciding on the illegalities of the order challenged, provided its own view on why the house should have been seized.

She added that the special judge has wrongly concluded that because she gave an interview in her house, it can be treated as her office. The plea further states that the act of giving an interview does not amount to terrorist activity.

Fehmeeda, on the other hand, has stated that the special judge wrongly concluded that the act of using a car for travelling is a terrorist activity. “It is submitted that not every activity by a Proscribed Organization can be termed as a terrorist activity or a banned activity,” she argued in her plea, adding that the special judge has presumed that the car was used for terrorist activities without any evidence.

More From The Financial Express

The Financial Express
The Financial Express
image beaconimage beaconimage beacon