The Delhi High Court on Tuesday indicated that it may allow Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend the second part of the ongoing Budget Parliamentary Session, which will end on April 4, while in custody.
The Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reserved its judgment on a petition filed by the Baramulla MP.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Rashid, submitted that he was not pressing for release on interim bail or custody parole, but only seeking permission to attend the Parliament while in custody.
The Counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) said the allegations against Rashid were serious and heinous in nature. He could say anything inside the Parliament that may affect the security of the country.
The High Court noted that NIA should not come from a point of fear that Rashid would do anything inside Parliament. The agency must not undermine the power of the court or the Speaker, it added.
The Division Bench said it was not granting bail to Rashid under Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court would send its officers with him throughout except where they were not allowed.
The NIA should not undermine the position and power of the Speaker and the Secretary General to enforce discipline within Parliament. There was no reason to believe that Rashid would not be in control inside the Parliament.
Mentioning a previous single-judge Bench order granting custody parole to Rashid to attend Parliament, the High Court told the NIA to apprise it, if it had any further apprehension. The same would be included as additional conditions in the order.
It further told the Counsel representing the national agency to have confidence in the powers of the Court and the Speaker.
Noting that the J&K MP was an elected representative of the people, the Division bench said there was no point in apprehending that Rashid may do something inside the confines of the highest temple of democracy- Parliament.
The High Court pointed out that the allegations against Rashid were extremely serious in nature.
The Counsel representing the UAPA accused said that the charges were available against Rashid previously also when he was allowed to contest elections last year and was even released for campaigning for the polls.
On a query related to his conduct, the Counsel appearing for NIA apprised the Division Bench that Rashid did not breach any conditions imposed by the High Court while granting him interim bail for contesting elections, or of custody parole to attend Parliament last month.
The Counsel appearing for the national agency, however, said that Rashid could not be treated at par with any other Parliamentarian. The order would virtually mean that he was out on bail, whereas, his bail had been rejected twice by the trial court on merits.
The High Court then said that if Rashid remained in custody for the next 10 years and continued to be a Parliamentarian, what would happen to his oath’s right and his responsibility as a legislator.
As a matter of law, undertrials should be prevented from contesting elections. That’s not the law. A simple FIR somewhere and the person would be disqualified from contesting elections. The law was justified and sound, it noted.
On the apprehension that the Court’s custody would end the moment Rashid entered the Parliament, his Counsel said that his custody could be extended through the Speaker and the Secretary General.
The High Court then asked the NIA Counsel whether special permission could be taken from the Speaker or the Secretary General of Parliament to allow a prison officer or a policeman with Rashid inside Parliament in plain clothing.
The NIA counsel said that if such a permission has to be sought, then the agency would have to write to the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The Division Bench said that it would pass an order in the matter.