Delhi High Court Delivers Split Verdict In Jailed MP Engineer Rashid's Plea Against ₹4Lakh Costs To Attend Parliament

The Delhi High Court on Friday delivered split verdict in the plea moved by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid challenging costs imposed on him by a trial court while granting him custody parole to attend the Parliament.

Justice Vivek Chaudhary, heading the bench, dismissed Rashid's plea whereas Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed the same.

The matter will now be placed before Chief Justice Bench for passing appropriate orders.

In his ruling, Justice Chaudhary said that custodial parole can be granted to a convict only on account of death, marriage or serious illness in the family or to him or for any other similar emergent situation but there was no such emergent circumstance placed by Rashid for grant of custody parole.

“Sole circumstance placed is 'to attend Parliament sittings in regular course', which cannot be termed as an emergent situation comparable to death, marriage or serious illness in the family or to the applicant. Once it is already settled in law that a Parliamentarian does not have any entitlement to attend the Parliament while he is in judicial custody, to grant him custody parole for the same reason, would be indirectly doing what is barred by law,” the judge said.

It was also observed: “Thus, in view of the law discussed above, no case is made out by the appellant for grant of custody parole. Thus, there is no question of even waving the cost imposed by the Division Bench in a discretionary exercise of power by its Order dated 25.03.2025 or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in its Order dated 22.07.2025. Even the period for which request is made has expired since long.”

On the other hand, Justice Bhambhani modified the trial court condition and said that Rashid shall only be liable to pay reasonable costs that would be incurred by the State towards his transportation from Tihar Jail to Parliament and back for every day that he avails custody-parole to attend Parliament.

The Court ordered that the costs payable by him would only be towards Jail Van Expenses and Escort Vehicle Expenses at Rs. 1036 and Rs. 1020 per day respectively.

It clarified that Rashid shall not be entitled to seek refund or adjustment towards future costs of any money already paid by him to the State towards costs and expenses for availing custody-parole.

“I accordingly hold that the only legitimate expense that the appellant can be asked to bear is the cost of transportation for taking him from prison to Parliament and back; and the State‟s demand that the appellant must foot the charges for all police officers, who are public servants, and who the State says are required to accompany the appellant, is wholly unjustified and deserves to be quashed,” the judge said.

Justice Bhambhani further observed that in a Parliamentary democracy, an elected Member of Parliament owes a solemn obligation to his electors, and it is his bounden duty to represent his constituents in parliamentary proceedings. 

 The Court added that the importance of the role is highlighted by the fact that when a Parliament session is convened, no less a person than the President of India calls upon Members of Parliament to attend its proceedings.

“The appellant has not been granted his liberty, as it were, but has only been permitted to be taken „in-custody‟ by the jail authorities for the limited purpose of allowing him to participate in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha. It is not available to the appellant, to enjoy any liberty or freedoms except in the terms contained in order dated 25.03.2025. The appellant continues to remain in the custody of the court,” the Court said.

It reiterated that an unconscionable condition or a condition that is impossible of performance, must never be imposed once a Court decides that a prisoner deserves bail.

“The same principle must apply a-fortiori to the grant of custody- parole, since it would be anathema for a constitutional court to grant relief to an under-trial with one hand and take-away that relief with the other hand, by imposing an unconscionable or impossible condition,” it concluded.

Rashid sought modification of an order passed by a coordinate bench on March 25 asking him to deposit ₹4 lakh (approx) with the jail authorities, so as to attend the Parliament while being in custody.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for Rashid and said that Rashid was unable to represent his constituency (Baramulla) due to the condition imposed on him to pay daily costs to attend the parliamentary session.

He also said that the salary of the police officials (one of the components charged in the costs) is not contemplated in the Delhi Prison Rules. The notification cannot bypass the Rules, he had said.

Hariharan had also said that Rashid can pay reasonable expenses, including the cost of lunch and dinner of the police officials but he will not be in a position to pay for their salaries.

The counsel appearing for the Delhi Police had explained to the Court the break-up of the calculation of amount imposed on Rashid.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for National Investigation Agency (NIA), along with SPP Akshai Malik and Advocate Khawar Saleem.

Rashid was elected from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and has been lodged in Tihar Jail since 2019 after the NIA arrested him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror-funding case.

Rashid has been in jail since 2019 after he was charged by NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in alleged terror funding case.

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA