Delhi Court Convicts Asiya Andrabi Under UAPA: A Landmark Judgment in India’s Crackdown on Kashmiri Separatism
With sentencing due on January 17, 2026, the conviction of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat founder marks a decisive legal moment in the post–Article 370 era
By: Javid Amin | 14 January 2026
A Verdict Years in the Making
The conviction of Asiya Andrabi, one of Kashmir’s most recognisable separatist figures, by a Delhi court under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) marks a pivotal moment in India’s long-running legal and security campaign against separatist networks in Jammu and Kashmir.
On January 14, 2026, a National Investigation Agency (NIA) special court in Delhi, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh, found Andrabi and two of her close associates — Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen — guilty of conspiring to wage war against India and being members of a banned terrorist organisation.
While the conviction itself carries far-reaching symbolic and political significance, the legal process is not yet complete. The court has scheduled sentencing arguments for January 17, 2026, a date that will determine the quantum of punishment under one of India’s most stringent anti-terror laws.
The verdict closes one chapter in a case that began nearly eight years ago — but opens a broader debate on national security, separatism, women’s participation in militant politics, and the reach of UAPA.
Who Is Asiya Andrabi?
A Distinct Voice in Kashmiri Separatism
Asiya Andrabi rose to prominence as a hardline separatist leader and founder of Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM), an organisation established in 1987 that positioned itself as an all-women Islamist group advocating Kashmir’s secession from India.
Unlike many separatist leaders who operated within male-dominated structures, Andrabi cultivated a distinct identity:
-
Mobilising women for protests
-
Framing separatism through a religious lens
-
Rejecting electoral politics outright
Her rhetoric and activism placed her at the most uncompromising end of the separatist spectrum, often aligning ideologically with Pakistan-backed narratives on Kashmir.
From Activism to Proscription
Over time, Indian authorities accused Dukhtaran-e-Millat of:
-
Acting as a front for extremist mobilisation
-
Inciting violence and unrest
-
Promoting secessionist ideology
The organisation was eventually banned under UAPA, bringing Andrabi directly into the ambit of India’s counter-terror legal framework.
The Case: Charges and Conviction
Who Was Convicted
The Delhi court convicted:
-
Asiya Andrabi
-
Sofi Fehmeeda
-
Nahida Nasreen
All three were found guilty of participating in activities that the prosecution argued went beyond political dissent and entered the realm of terror conspiracy.
Charges Proven
According to the court’s findings, the accused were guilty of:
-
Conspiracy to wage war against India
-
Membership of a terrorist organisation
-
Incitement through hate speeches and propaganda
These offences were established under relevant sections of the UAPA, including:
-
Section 18 (conspiracy to commit terrorist acts)
-
Section 38 (membership of a terrorist organisation)
The court accepted the prosecution’s argument that the activities were systematic, organised, and ideologically driven, rather than spontaneous expressions of dissent.
Timeline: From Arrest to Conviction
April 2018: Arrest
Asiya Andrabi was arrested in April 2018, following the registration of a case by the National Investigation Agency. The arrests came amid heightened security operations in Kashmir, months before the abrogation of Article 370.
Investigation Phase
The NIA alleged that:
-
Andrabi and her associates were actively running a banned organisation
-
They coordinated protests and unrest
-
They disseminated anti-India propaganda
-
Their actions aimed to destabilise the state and incite violence
The investigation relied on:
-
Seized documents
-
Digital evidence
-
Recorded speeches
-
Witness testimonies
January 14, 2026: Conviction
After prolonged trial proceedings, the NIA special court delivered its verdict, convicting all three accused.
January 17, 2026: Sentencing Pending
The court has fixed January 17, 2026, for arguments on sentencing, which could result in long-term imprisonment, depending on the sections invoked.
Understanding Dukhtaran-e-Millat
Origins and Ideology
Founded in 1987, Dukhtaran-e-Millat emerged during a period of rising militancy in Kashmir. The organisation:
-
Advocated for Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan
-
Promoted Islamist interpretations of resistance
-
Rejected secular or electoral approaches
Its emphasis on women’s mobilisation made it unusual but influential, particularly during protest cycles in the 1990s and 2000s.
Why It Was Banned
Indian authorities argued that DeM:
-
Functioned as a radicalising platform
-
Encouraged violent protests, including stone-pelting
-
Provided ideological support to militancy
Its ban under UAPA formalised the state’s view that the group crossed the threshold from political activism to terror-linked activity.
Why This Conviction Matters
A Legal Milestone
The conviction reinforces:
-
The state’s reliance on UAPA to prosecute separatist leaders
-
Judicial endorsement of the NIA’s framing of such groups as terrorist organisations
For law enforcement agencies, the verdict strengthens the legal precedent for using anti-terror laws against ideological separatism.
Symbolic Significance
Asiya Andrabi was:
-
One of the most prominent female separatist leaders
-
A symbolic figure for hardline resistance
Her conviction sends a message that gender does not insulate leaders from anti-terror prosecution, and that women-led separatist movements are equally subject to scrutiny.
Post–Article 370 Context
A Changed Legal Landscape
Since the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, the Indian state has:
-
Intensified legal action against separatist networks
-
Banned multiple organisations
-
Restricted public mobilisation
The Andrabi conviction fits squarely within this broader strategy of legal consolidation and deterrence.
Separatist Space Shrinks
With many senior separatist leaders:
-
Arrested
-
Convicted
-
Or politically marginalised
The organised separatist ecosystem in Kashmir has been significantly weakened, at least in visible terms.
Human Rights and Civil Liberties Debate
Criticism of UAPA
Civil liberties groups and rights advocates argue that:
-
UAPA grants sweeping powers to the state
-
Bail provisions are exceptionally stringent
-
Prolonged incarceration before conviction is common
They caution that broad definitions of terrorism risk conflating dissent with extremism.
State’s Counter-Argument
Supporters of UAPA insist that:
-
Terror networks exploit democratic freedoms
-
Conventional criminal law is insufficient
-
National security requires preventive action
In cases like Andrabi’s, they argue, the conviction validates the necessity of strong legal instruments.
Security Imperative vs Democratic Norms
The Andrabi verdict underscores a recurring dilemma in India’s Kashmir policy:
-
How to dismantle violent and ideological threats
-
Without undermining constitutional principles
For the state, the conviction demonstrates legal closure.
For critics, it raises questions about how far anti-terror laws should extend.
Regional and Political Fallout
Within Kashmir
The conviction may:
-
Further marginalise separatist narratives
-
Deepen alienation among residual sympathisers
-
Reinforce the perception of a security-driven governance model
However, public reaction in the Valley has remained muted, reflecting the shrinking space for organised separatist mobilisation.
National Implications
Nationally, the verdict will likely be cited as:
-
Proof of effective counter-terror prosecution
-
A benchmark for future UAPA cases
It also strengthens the narrative that separatism is being addressed through courts, not just force.
What Happens Next?
Sentencing on January 17
The sentencing hearing will determine:
-
Length of imprisonment
-
Whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively
Given the seriousness of the charges, legal experts anticipate substantial prison terms.
Possible Appeals
The defence retains the right to:
-
Appeal the conviction
-
Challenge the application of UAPA
-
Seek judicial review in higher courts
The legal journey, therefore, may continue beyond the trial court.
Conclusion: A Verdict With Lasting Consequences
The conviction of Asiya Andrabi under UAPA is more than the culmination of a single case. It represents:
-
A decisive assertion of the Indian state’s legal authority
-
A narrowing of the separatist political space
-
A reinforcement of UAPA as a central instrument in counter-terror strategy
For supporters of strong security laws, it is a moment of vindication.
For critics, it is a reminder of the tension between security and civil liberties.
As sentencing awaits on January 17, 2026, one thing is clear:
The Andrabi verdict will remain a reference point in discussions on Kashmir, separatism, and the reach of India’s anti-terror laws for years to come.
