Judicial Tyranny in IIOJK: A Grave Assault on Justice

Two Kashmiris Sentenced in Decades-Old Case Raises Alarming Questions

In a disturbing development that underscores the deep-rooted judicial prejudice under Indian occupation, a court in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) has handed down life sentences to two Kashmiri men: Mohammad Mumtaz and Farooq Ahmed in connection with a case registered over two decades ago. This highly belated verdict highlights the alarming politicization of India’s judiciary in the disputed region and reinforces the widespread perception that courts are now active instruments of state repression.

Voluntary Surrender Met With Harshest Punishment

Principal Sessions Judge Ramban, Deepak Sethi, convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 364 of the Ranbir Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and an additional ten years. Ironically, the court itself admitted that both individuals had voluntarily surrendered and had dependent families relying on them. Despite these mitigating factors, the judiciary imposed the most severe sentence possible, exposing a blatant disregard for principles of proportionality and justice.

Legal System Weaponized to Suppress Dissent

This ruling is not an isolated miscarriage of justice but part of a consistent pattern of judicial misuse in IIOJK. Human rights observers and legal experts in Pakistan have condemned the decision as a calculated attempt to criminalize political dissent. By resurrecting obsolete cases and pursuing selective prosecutions, the Indian state is deploying its courts to intimidate Kashmiri voices demanding justice and self-determination. What should be a neutral legal forum has become a platform for state vengeance, where outdated allegations are reactivated to serve current political goals.

Justice Denied by Design

The extraordinary delay of over twenty years in prosecuting this case renders the entire process deeply questionable. In any rule-based system, such delay would likely render the prosecution legally and morally indefensible. In IIOJK, however, justice is neither blind nor balanced; it is calibrated to serve the occupier’s objectives. This judgment, delivered under the veil of legality, is in essence a judicial endorsement of political persecution.

Eroding Credibility of the Judiciary

India’s shallow claim to being the world’s largest democracy is further discredited when its judiciary in occupied regions fails to uphold even the basic standards of fairness. The selective nature of this prosecution, the extreme delay, and the severity of punishment point to a judiciary in complicity with state objectives, rather than acting as a guardian of constitutional rights. This case serves as a painful reminder that in IIOJK, courts no longer offer protection; they offer punishment, often preordained and politically motivated.

Global Silence Must End

The international community must no longer ignore this systematic legal abuse. Global human rights organisations and democratic nations must question how a judiciary tasked with delivering justice can operate under such apparent political influence. The case of Mumtaz and Ahmed is not an exception; it is representative of a wider crisis, where rule of law is replaced by rule through law.

Conclusion: A Struggle Beyond the Courtroom

The sentencing of two ordinary Kashmiris is a symbol of a much deeper struggle, that of the people fighting for dignity under an oppressive regime. Each verdict delivered under such compromised circumstances deepens public alienation and affirms what many in IIOJK have long believed: that in the eyes of the occupying state, seeking justice is itself an offence. This case is a call to conscience for the international legal fraternity, civil society, and human rights defenders. The world must recognise the truth behind India’s judicial posture in IIOJK and speak out against the ongoing erosion of legal and human rights.