![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kmsnews.org\/kms\/assests\/2025\/09\/a1-310x220.jpg\")
Jammu: The High Court of Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir has held that interlocutory orders passed under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be challenged under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, further tightening the legal noose around those accused under the controversial law.<\/p>\n
According to Kashmir Media Service, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed by two Kashmiri youth, Yasir Ahmad Butt of Jablipora and Mehraj-ud-Din Dar of Sirhama, Bijbehara, who had sought release of their seized vehicle. The duo had been arrested during a naka by police and Indian Army\u2019s 3 Rashtriya Rifles unit at Mehand-Satkipora Crossing in Islamabad in November 2023.<\/p>\n
Their application for release of the vehicle\u2014allegedly the family\u2019s only source of livelihood\u2014was earlier dismissed by the Special UAPA Court at Islamabad in January this year. In appeal, the High Court ruled that Section 25 of the UAPA already provides a \u201ccomplete mechanism\u201d for seizure, confirmation, and appeal through the Designated Authority and Special Court, making any attempt to challenge such orders under the NIA Act impermissible.<\/p>\n
The court stressed that rejecting the release of a seized vehicle was an interlocutory order and not open to appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. \u201cEntertaining such appeals would amount to usurping the powers of the Designated Authority,\u201d the bench observed, while vacating all interim directions.<\/p>\n
The judgment once again highlights how the UAPA framework, backed by Indian courts, leaves little room for relief to those booked under the black law, which rights groups say has been weaponised to silence Kashmiris and deprive them of livelihoods under the guise of counter-terrorism.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu: The High Court of Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir has held that interlocutory orders passed under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be challenged under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, further tightening the legal noose around those accused under the controversial law. According to Kashmir Media Service, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":184100,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[5],"class_list":["post-184099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-courts","tag-top-story"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t