What Delhi High Court said on NIA opposition to Engineer Rashid's plea to attend Parliament

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) continued opposition to allowing jailed Baramulla Member of Parliament (MP) Abdul Rashid Sheikh alias Engineer Rashid permission to attend parliament while remaining in custody. .The Bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Anup Jairam Bhambani today suggested that Rashid could attend the ongoing parliamentary session while accompanied by police personnel. The Court could also request the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha to permit a police person to remain present along with Rashid in parliament, the Bench added. .The Court further questioned whether Rashid could be prevented from attended parliament if security concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions. The Bench noted that Rashid was already allowed once earlier by a single-judge to attend parliamentary sessions. "Full precautions have been taken (in the single judge order) that the petitioner does not do anything which is unwarranted, even within the precincts of the parliament. He remains in custody ... He is not even going home .... Why should there be such an opposition for a person who is elected from any State? ... He won the elections, he was returned to Parliament, then he came to this court and he was allowed to attend the session of parliament in custody. Now, he comes again a second time. If he remains in custody for the next 10 years and remains a parliamentarian at the same time, what happens to his both his rights as well as obligation as a parliamentarian?" Justice Bhambhani remarked. The Court added that it would pass a detailed order soon in the matter. .If he (Rashid) remains in custody for the next 10 years and remains a parliamentarian at the same time, what happens?Delhi High Court.Rashid is currently in Tihar Jail as an accused in a terror funding case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He was arrested in 2019.He had won the Baramulla Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls by defeating current Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah by over two lakh votes. He had earlier moved a trial court for bail, which recently rejected the bail plea.Meanwhile, Rashid also approached the High Court seeking permission to attend the ongoing parliament session. The High Court sought the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) response to this plea on March 12. .Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for Rashid during today's hearing and argued that the MP has a duty to attend the parliament as an elected representative. "No parole, no interim bail, just send me in custody. Everyday people are sent in custody. I am always in court's custody," he further said. .Justice Bhambani observed that conditions could be imposed to take care of security concerns that may arise if Rashid is allowed to go to parliament. "Is a member of parliament a flight risk? We can prevent him from using the cellphone. We have no jurisdiction in the parliament, the Speaker and Chairman will take care of what happens in the Parliament," the judge remarked. "The policeman in plain clothes was allowed to come inside with me (Rashid) earlier," Hariharan added. .Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, however, maintained that allowing Rashid to attend parliament may be problematic. "If he makes a political statement, it would be a problem. These types of offenders (UAPA accused) need to be treated differently," the ASG said. "You want us to ignore that fact that he is an elected parliamentarian?" Justice Bhambani replied. Justice Bhambhani further remarked that if he is allowed to go to parliament, Rashid would be in the highest temple of democracy."Please don't undermine parliament's authority," the judge said, while addressing the ASG. .The Court, however, also briefly questioned Rashid's counsel on whether the present plea was a means of indirectly securing a release on bail, since the trial court has rejected the MP's regular bail plea. "Why do you want to attend the session if you have no right? This is a special Act. You have a serious charge. That's why you are taking this route, not pressing regular bail," Justice Singh said. .Hariharan, however, maintained that Rashid should be given permission to attend parliament, particularly since a single-judge had already given the MP such relief on an earlier occasion. There should be continuity, the senior lawyer said."I will not utter anything against the State," Rashid's counsel added."Can we add an additional condition that he would remain true to his oath as a parliamentarian?" the Bench added"I am willing, straight away," Hariharan replied. "Can we (give) permission if a plain-clothed policeman is present in the session with him?" the Court further asked.The ASG said that he could seek instructions on this aspect. The Court then proceeded to reserve its verdict in the matter. .[Read Live Coverage]