SRINAGAR, 20 Feb : The Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s Srinagar bench on Wednesday rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by Advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom, a former president of the High Court Bar Association (HCBA), who is a key accused in the widely discussed Babar Qadri murder case.
Qayoom was apprehended by the State Investigation Agency (SIA) on June 25, 2024. Authorities identified him as the chief planner in the assassination of Babar Qadri, a young legal practitioner who was fatally shot by terrorists at his home in Zahidpora, Hawal, Srinagar, on September 24, 2020.
Qadri had openly questioned Qayoom’s influence and role within the legal fraternity, using public speeches and social media to highlight his concerns. In a video recorded on the day of his murder, Qadri alleged that Qayoom used terrorist threats to pressure opponents into withdrawing from Bar Association elections.
Through his plea (HCP No. 331 of 2024, dated October 8, 2024), Qayoom contested the legitimacy of his arrest and subsequent court-ordered detentions. The petition was presented by Supreme Court advocate Sakal Bhushan.
However, the SIA opposed the plea, citing substantial oral, documentary, and digital evidence gathered by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case. Advocate Mohsin Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondent SIA, J&K. His articulate arguments and deep understanding of the case played a crucial role in upholding the rule of law.
Justice Vinod Chatterjee Koul dismissed the petition, validating Qayoom’s arrest by the SIA and his ongoing detention as sanctioned by a special court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act in Jammu.
Given security threats faced by Qadri’s family, the High Court had, in December 2023, shifted the trial of FIR No. 62/2020 from Srinagar’s Lal Bazar police station (now under SIA Kashmir) to Jammu.
Who is Mian Abdul Qayoom?
Mian Abdul Qayoom served as the chief legal advisor to pro-Pakistan secessionist Syed Ali Shah Geelani during the 1987 elections. He had strong links with Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and actively promoted Geelani’s secessionist ideology.
Qayoom first gained prominence in 1987 when he led protests against the state government’s decision to establish a few secretariat-level offices in Jammu. In 1990, he publicly supported the secessionist movement, submitting a memorandum to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in Srinagar. Officials noted that he played a key role in enforcing shutdowns and protest calls orchestrated by Geelani.
During the 2008 Amarnath land agitation, Qayoom led demonstrations across Kashmir, demanding the revocation of the land transfer to the Amarnath Shrine Board. Addressing a press conference at Jamat-Ahli-Hadees headquarters in Barbarshah, he urged people to persist in their protests. His rhetoric framed the issue as a communal conflict between Hindu-majority Jammu and Muslim-majority Kashmir. The unrest resulted in 46 fatalities, injuries to over 1,200 individuals—including security personnel—and extensive destruction of public property.
In multiple election cycles, Qayoom actively campaigned against Indian democracy, urging boycotts and visiting the homes of killed terrorists to instigate violence against security forces.
In 2009, he played a central role in fueling tensions following the deaths of two women, Aasiya and Neelofar, in Shopian. Despite forensic findings suggesting suicide, Qayoom propagated the false claim that security forces had raped and murdered them, sparking widespread unrest.
Despite earning a livelihood through India’s legal system, Qayoom openly rejected the country’s Constitution. During a 2010 contempt case hearing at the High Court, he declared, “I do not believe in the Constitution of India.” When asked by the judge if he wanted his statement on record, he reaffirmed his stance.
Under Qayoom’s leadership, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association formally adopted an anti-India position in its constitution. One of its stated objectives was to assert that “Kashmir is a dispute requiring resolution.”
Temple Land Grabbing and ISI Links
Senior police sources revealed that Qayoom forcibly occupied 159 kanals of temple land using fraudulent means. Investigative agencies have also linked him to a legal cell funded by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). For decades, this group worked to secure favorable verdicts for individuals associated with terrorism and separatism, shielding them from legal action.
During his tenure at the HCBA, Qayoom frequently attempted to discredit security forces and law enforcement through events and statements on so called human rights violations. However, he never condemned the violence inflicted on civilians by Pakistan-backed terrorists.
Officials believe that Qayoom has been a steadfast proponent of Pakistan’s ideology, using the Bar Association to spread anti-India narratives at the behest of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and terrorist groups.
A senior lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated, “Qayoom turned the Bar Association into a tool for intimidation. Many legal professionals feared him like a shadow of death.” He added, “He misled the international community by distorting facts and fabricating victimhood narratives to suit his agenda.”
