Delhi HC reserves order on Engineer Rashid’s plea for custody parole to attend Parliament

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order on a plea of jailed MP Rashid Engineer, facing trial in a terror funding case, seeking custody parole to attend the ongoing Parliament session.

Justice Vikas Mahajan heard the counsel appearing for the Baramulla MP and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and reserved the verdict.

The NIA counsel opposed the grant of custody parole, saying Rashid had no vested right to attend Parliament.

He further argued that Rashid did not show any “specific purpose” while seeking the relief and there were security concerns, falling within the domain of the Parliament authorities.

Custody parole entails a prisoner being escorted by armed police personnel to the place of visit.

Justice Mahajan said though there might not be a vested right to attend the session, the court could exercise its discretion.

The agency’s lawyer distinguished the present circumstances from cases where custody parole was granted for marriage or bereavement, and said here norms of a sovereign third party, i.e., the Parliament, were involved.

“He has to be accompanied by armed personnel. How can you have armed personnel enter Parliament? Nobody with arms can enter. My objection has no meaning. He is subject to the norms of a different body,” argued senior advocate Sidharth Luthra.

“There are security issues beyond NIA’s domain. Custody parole is not a vested right of a parliamentarian,” he added.

Rashid’s counsel, senior advocate N Hariharan, said his client ought to be allowed to attend the session as his constituency was not being represented during the budget session when the funds allocated to his state had gone down by Rs 1,000 crore.

Referring to MP Pappu Yadav’s case, Hariharan said “necessary arrangements” could be made by the ministry of home affairs.

“I represent the largest constituency of Jammu and Kashmir. Don’t prevent the representation when the process of inclusion has started... Don’t stifle the voice of the constituency,” he argued.

Saying Rashid was earlier given the reprieve to campaign for the Lok Sabha election and take the oath, Hariharan asked how could be he a security threat now in Parliament or influence witnesses.

Luthra, however, said there was no “purpose” left in letting Rashid attend the session at this stage and his earlier plea to attend the previous Parliament session was also rejected.

“What is the purpose today? Budget was presented. He had to go for the debate. Debate is partly going on. Has he done anything except he is sitting on hunger strike and has been sent to RML,” said Luthra.

He clarified allowing Rashid to take oath was a “separate issue” and he was allowed to campaign in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Kejriwal’s case.

The NIA counsel said his previous conduct had to be scrutinised and alleged Rashid misused the telephone facility in Tihar Jail.

The court was hearing Rashid’s petition alleging he was left without any remedy after the NIA court dealing with his bail application left him in a limbo post his election to the Lok Sabha last year on account of it not being a special MP/MLA court.

In his petition, Rashid sought the high court to either direct the expeditious disposal of his pending bail plea by the NIA court or decide the matter itself. He also prayed for an interim bail to attend the budget session of Parliament, which began on January 31 and concludes on April 4.

NIA opposed Rashid’s plea seeking interim bail to attend the Parliament session and said he had no such “right” as a parliamentarian.

On February 6, he prayed for custody parole in view of the first leg of the Parliament session ending on February 13.

On the issue of designation of a court to hear the bail plea, the high court administration’s counsel said its plea in this regard was mentioned in the Supreme Court as per the procedure and was likely to be taken up on February 10.

In response to the main petition, NIA has said being an MP, Rashid was a “highly influential person” who could influence witnesses and hamper trial.  The trial was under progress with 21 prosecution witnesses being examined till date out of 248 witnesses and no delay could be attributable to the prosecution, it said.