Delhi HC reserves verdict on Engineer Rashid’s plea to attend Budget session

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved judgment on the plea from Jammu and Kashmir MP Sheikh Abdul 'Engineer' Rashid seeking custody parole to attend the Parliamentary Budget session. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed his bail plea.

The court has reserved its verdict on the custody parole plea and scheduled a hearing for Rashid's main bail application on 11 February. Justice Vikas Mahajan reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from senior advocate N. Hariharan on behalf of Rashid and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra representing the NIA.

“The court has heard senior counsel N. Hariharan for the petitioner and senior counsel Siddharth Luthra for the NIA. The judgment on the request for custody parole to enable the petitioner to attend the ongoing Parliament session has been reserved,” the court noted.

Rashid was elected from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and has been incarcerated in Tihar Jail since 2019 following his arrest by the NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a terror funding case.

While opposing the custody parole, Luthra cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Suresh Kalmadi case, which stated that there is no inherent right to attend Parliament. He argued that granting such relief is not possible in light of the Kalmadi judgment.

Hariharan countered that while it is acknowledged that there is no vested right, the Kalmadi judgment also indicated that the decision rests with the court, based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Luthra further argued that there was no justification for Rashid's presence in Parliament, especially since the Budget had been presented days earlier. He expressed concerns regarding security, stating that allowing Rashid to attend on custody parole would necessitate him being accompanied by armed personnel at all times, which contravenes parliamentary rules.

He asserted, “Armed personnel cannot enter Parliament due to existing restrictions. The question is how can armed personnel be permitted in such a scenario?” Luthra added that security matters fall outside the NIA's jurisdiction and should be addressed by the secretary general of Parliament.

In contrast, Hariharan referenced the Pappu Yadav case, suggesting that Rashid could similarly be granted custody parole. He highlighted that no allegations have been made against Rashid regarding witness tampering, stating, “Baramulla is the largest constituency in J&K. I represent 50 percent of Kashmiris. We are striving for inclusion; don’t hinder my parliamentary representation when this process has already begun. There are only two days left until the first part of the session concludes.”

Rashid is seeking an expedited ruling from the trial court on his second regular bail plea. In his petition, he has requested that the trial court expedite its decision or alternatively treat the writ petition as his second regular bail application for the high court's consideration.

This development follows a December ruling from the Additional Sessions Judge, who stated that while it could address Rashid's miscellaneous application, it could not resolve his regular bail application. The Judge had then requested that the UAPA case be transferred to a designated MP/MLA court after Rashid's election.