Former Kashmir Bar President Mian Qayoom Charged Under UAPA for Lawyer's Murder

JAMMU – In a case that underscores the turbulent intersection of law, politics, and violence in Jammu and Kashmir, a Special Designated Court under the NIA Act has formally framed charges against Mian Abdul Qayoom, a prominent lawyer and two-time former president of the Kashmir High Court Bar Association (HCBA). The charges, brought under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), accuse Qayoom of being the principal conspirator in the 2020 assassination of Advocate Babar Qadri, a vocal critic and fellow member of the legal fraternity.

The court framed charges under Sections 16 (committing a terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act), and 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA. This development marks a critical juncture in a high-profile investigation that has sent shockwaves through the region's legal community, pivoting from a murder inquiry into a case of alleged terror conspiracy.

The State Investigation Agency (SIA), which filed the chargesheet, alleges that Qayoom orchestrated the murder of Babar Qadri through terrorists of The Resistance Front (TRF), an organisation designated as a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba. This move to formally frame charges means the court has found sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with a full trial against the 77-year-old legal veteran.

The Assassination and a History of Dissent

Advocate Babar Qadri, a promising 40-year-old lawyer, was brutally murdered at his residence in Hawal, Srinagar, on September 24, 2020. Assailants, posing as clients seeking legal advice, shot him at close range shortly after he returned from court. Qadri was not only a practicing lawyer but also a frequent panellist on television news debates and a human rights activist.

Crucially, he was the founder of the 'Kashmir Lawyers Club,' a dissident group formed to challenge the established leadership of the HCBA, then headed by Mian Qayoom. Qadri had been openly critical of Qayoom, publicly accusing him of using the prestigious Bar Association as a platform to promote a secessionist agenda, allegedly at the expense of the professional welfare of lawyers. As one source noted, Qadri was "actively critical of Mian Qayoom—particularly accusing him of using the Kashmir Bar Association to further a secessionist agenda." This professional and ideological rivalry now forms the alleged motive at the heart of the prosecution's case.

The Investigation: Twists, Turns, and Transfers

The investigation into Qadri's murder has been complex and contentious. Initially handled by the Srinagar police, the case saw a chargesheet filed against six other accused in 2021. However, the probe gained new momentum after being transferred to the specialist State Investigation Agency (SIA) in July 2023 amid "concerns of interference and intimidation in Srinagar."

This transfer proved pivotal. The SIA conducted extensive searches and, according to officials, unearthed evidence pointing to Qayoom as the chief conspirator. In a significant development, the SIA announced a reward of ₹10 lakh in September 2023 for information leading to a breakthrough in the case. Qayoom was ultimately arrested on June 25, 2024.

The legal proceedings have also been marked by extraordinary measures to ensure their integrity. In December 2023, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court transferred the trial from Srinagar to a special court in Jammu. The High Court's decision cited a "serious view of the ‘interference in the judicial process’ by Qayoom as well as ‘intimidation’ of the family of the deceased." This judicial intervention highlights the sensitive nature of the case and the influence wielded by the accused, who is also the father-in-law of a sitting High Court judge, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani.

Legal Challenges and the UAPA Framework

Following his arrest, Mian Qayoom mounted a legal challenge against his detention. His legal team, led by Senior Advocates R.A. Jan and Z.A. Qureshi, filed a habeas corpus petition and contested the legality of the arrest and remand process. However, in a significant victory for the prosecution, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed these petitions in February 2025, "reaffirming the legal propriety of the arrest and investigation."

The framing of charges under the UAPA, rather than solely under the Indian Penal Code for murder, elevates the case significantly. The UAPA allows for more stringent bail conditions and a broader definition of "terrorist act." By invoking Sections 16 and 18, the prosecution is not merely arguing that Qayoom was involved in a murder, but that the murder itself was a terrorist act committed as part of a wider conspiracy to silence dissent and further a secessionist cause through violence.

The SIA’s supplementary chargesheet, running over 340 pages, reportedly details Qayoom's alleged history as a "terrorist sympathiser and diehard secessionist." It claims he treated the HCBA as a "fiefdom" and a de facto constituent of the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), of which he was an executive member. The chargesheet also cites his alleged proximity to the late hardline Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and his purported declarations in open court that he did not consider himself an Indian citizen.

Implications for the Legal Profession

The case of State vs. Mian Abdul Qayoom presents a profound and troubling scenario for the legal community, particularly in Kashmir. It pits a former leader of the bar against a slain dissident from within its own ranks. The trial will not only determine the guilt or innocence of an individual but will also cast a harsh light on the internal politics of legal associations and the ethical lines that may have been crossed.

For legal professionals, the case raises several critical questions:
1. Politicization of Bar Associations: To what extent can and should professional legal bodies engage in political activism? The prosecution's case rests on the allegation that the HCBA under Qayoom was used to further a political agenda, creating an environment where professional dissent was allegedly met with lethal force.

2. Application of Anti-Terror Laws: The use of UAPA against a senior advocate for allegedly conspiring to murder a professional rival is a stark reminder of the expansive reach of anti-terror legislation. The trial's outcome will be closely watched for its interpretation of "terrorist act" and "conspiracy" in a context intertwined with political ideology.

3. Judicial Integrity and Witness Protection: The transfer of the trial due to concerns of intimidation underscores the immense challenge of ensuring a fair trial when influential individuals are accused. It highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the legal process from external pressures.

As the trial commences, the legal fraternity will be observing keenly. The prosecution, led by a team of Special Public Prosecutors, must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mian Qayoom, a man who once led the bar, conspired to commit a terrorist act by assassinating one of its own. The defense, in turn, will challenge the evidence presented by the SIA, likely arguing that the case is politically motivated. The verdict, whenever it arrives, will have lasting repercussions on the practice of law and the state of justice in the region.