NIA Opposes MP Engineer Rashid's Plea For Custody Parole To Attend Parliament, Delhi High Court Reserves Order

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved judgment on the plea moved by Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer seeking custody parole in order to enable him to attend the Parliamentary budget session.

Justice Vikas Mahajan reserved the verdict after hearing Senior Advocate N Hariharan for Rashid and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for National Investigation Agency (NIA).

“The Court has heard the Senior counsel N Hariharan appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra for NIA. One the aspect of grant of custody parole to enable the petitioner to attend the ongoing parliament; judgment reserved,” the Court said.

Opposing the grant of custody parole, Luthra referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Suresh Kalmadi case wherein it was held that there is no vested right to attend the Parliament. The relief is not possible in view of Kalmadi judgment, he said.

To this, Hariharan responded and said that while it is not disputed that the settled law says that there is no vested right, however, the Kalmadi judgment also held that grant of such a relief is the discretion of the Court of law which has to be exercised based on facts and circumstances of each case.

Luthra then said that there was no ground to show as to why Rashid has to be present in the parliament today when the budget has already been presented a few days ago.

He further submitted that there are security concerns in permitting Rashid to attend the parliament on custody parole as the process would require him to be accompanied by armed personnel all the time which is not allowed as per the Rules and Regulations of the parliament.

He said that such an issue is beyond the domain of NIA and in view of the security concerns, the Secretary General of the parliament has to be asked if such an arrangement would be permissible.

“He will have to be accompanied by armed personnel all the time. The question is how can you have armed personnel entering the parliament where there are parliamentary restrictions? No one can enter with arms….,” he said.

Luthra further said: “Third party norms and security concerns are involved in the matter which are beyond the domain of NIA…. This is only the domain of Secretary General.”

On the other hand, Hariharan referred to Pappu Yadav case and said that Rashid can also be allowed to be released on custody parole in similar manner.

He said that till date, there are no allegations that Rashid has influenced any of the witnesses.

“Baramulla is the largest constituency of J&K. I have to represent 50 percent of Kashmiris. We are trying to bring inclusion today. Don't prevent me to parliamentary representation when the process of inclusion has already started. Two days are left till the first part (of session) will be over,” Hariharan said.

The Court reserved verdict in the plea for custody parole and listed Rashid's main petition concerning the issue of his regular bail plea on February 11.

Rashid's main plea seeks expeditious ruling by the trial court on his second regular bail plea.

In his petition, Rashid has sought directions to the trial court judge to expedite a decision on his pending regular bail application.

In the alternative, he has prayed that the writ petition be treated as his second regular bail application and be decided by the High Court.

The development ensued after the ASJ, which was adjudicating the UAPA case, in December last year said that it could only decide Rashid's miscellaneous application but not his regular bail application.

The Additional Sessions Judge Court had then requested the District Judge to transfer the UAPA case to a MP/MLA designated court designated after Rashid became an MP.

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