Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, on Friday, vehemently opposed the petition of Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Sheikh Abdul Rashid, an accused in the Kashmir Terror Funding Case. Senior Advocate Luthra, appearing for NIA, stated that the legal position on the matter was clear after the Kalmadi case, which left no further scope for consideration. He emphasized that in the past, relief was granted only for election campaigning and on medical grounds, beyond which no further concessions were permissible.

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, noted that while parole is not a right accorded to an accused, “there is discretion with the court. But considering facts and circumstances, the court might not grant such discretion”. The court, thereafter, reserved its judgment. 

The court noted that apart from referencing the Kalmadi case, there was no additional material in the status report. It further remarked that the judgment in the Kalmadi case established that an accused had no vested right to seek such relief. Senior Advocate Luthra acknowledged this precedent and mentioned that he had inquired about existing guidelines for parliamentarians, which indicated that parole was permissible. 

However, the bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan clarified that parole applied only post-conviction, whereas Rashid remained an undertrial.

Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, for NIA, asserted that non-participation in assembly proceedings was a direct consequence of criminal proceedings. He further argued that parliamentarians involved in such cases could not claim rights and privileges typically granted to legislators. Referring to the Panwari Lal case, he emphasized that once arrested or lawfully detained, a parliamentarian could not be permitted to attend house sittings.

Senior Advocate Hariharan, for Rashid, pointed out that NIA had not opposed Rashid’s interim relief for election campaigning.  

During the arguments, Senior Advocate Luthra contended that a similar plea for attending parliamentary sessions had been dismissed earlier. In response, Senior Advocate Hariharan countered that interim bail had been granted to Rashid after that decision. The court then scheduled the next hearing for either the 10th or 11th of February, directing NIA to submit a detailed reply.

Senior Advocate Luthra highlighted that the budget had already been presented and that security concerns were paramount. He noted that Rashid, if allowed to attend the session, would require an escort by the armed officers, which was impermissible within the parliamentary premises. Additionally, he raised concerns over Rashid’s past conduct, which allegedly involved misuse of phone communications. He argued that security norms and third-party regulations, beyond the control of NIA, must also be considered.

When questioned by the court, Senior Advocate Luthra firmly opposed granting custody parole, insisting that the application lacked a clearly defined purpose and merely cited the need to represent Rashid’s constituency. Senior Advocate Hariharan countered that Rashid had won by a significant margin and was allowed to campaign without influencing anyone. He concluded by stressing the necessity of Rashid’s presence in the parliamentary proceedings.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate ​​N. Hariharan with Advocates Aditya Wadhwa, Vikhyat Oberoi, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash, Ravi Sharma, Jagriti Pandey, Punya Rekha Angara, Vasundhara N., Sana Singh, Aman Akhtar, Vinayak Gautam and Hasnain Khwaja
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik with Advocates Ayush Aggarwal, K. Saleem, K.P. Rustom Khan and Yatharth Sharma
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v NIA