Read Time: 06 minutes
Rashid's involvement emerged during the investigation of Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Watali, who faced allegations of financing terrorist organizations and separatist activities in Kashmir. Following this, the ED filed a money laundering case based on the NIA's FIR, accusing Rashid and others of conspiring to wage war against the government and inciting unrest in Kashmir.
Engineer Rashid, before the Delhi High Court, argued that ‘I was allowed to contest the elections when I was charged’ without opposition from NIA but is not being allowed to join the budget session to represent my constituency and fulfill my constitutional duty. These submissions were made in a plea filed by Engineer Rashid, an accused in the Kashmir Terror Funding Case, seeking permission to attend the ongoing budget session of Parliament.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, after considering the submission of the parties, reserved its order.
Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Engineer Rashid, argued that a previous order had granted Rashid permission to attend the budget session for two days. He clarified that his current request sought permission to attend the session while remaining in custody rather than seeking interim bail or parole. Senior Advocate Hariharan further contended that Rashid, as an elected representative from Jammu and Kashmir, had an obligation to participate in parliamentary proceedings.
The court acknowledged the significance of parliamentary duties but expressed concerns regarding the enforceability of its conditions once Rashid entered the Parliament premises. It reiterated that attending Parliament was not an enforceable right and emphasized the seriousness of the charges against him. The court also questioned whether an amendment to the plea was necessary, to which Senior Advocate Hariharan responded by making an oral amendment, citing the urgency of the matter.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea, arguing that Rashid contested elections with full knowledge of his custodial status. The agency questioned whether allowing an accused facing serious charges to participate in parliamentary proceedings could set a precedent for other professionals seeking similar custody arrangements. The NIA also highlighted the security risks associated with Rashid’s presence in Parliament.
The court considered a letter from Parliament regarding Rashid’s participation and deliberated on potential conditions that could be imposed. It suggested an additional condition requiring Rashid to remain true to his status as a parliamentarian. In response, Senior Advocate Hariharan offered an undertaking that if Rashid made any statements against the country, he would forfeit his right to appear before the court.
Background:
Engineer Rashid had won the Baramulla parliamentary seat in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. However, he had been in judicial custody at Tihar Jail since 2019 after his arrest by the NIA under the UAPA Act in relation to a 2017 terror-funding case.
In September 2024, Engineer Rashid was granted interim bail by the Rouse Avenue Court to campaign in the elections.
The Delhi High Court, in an order dated 11 February 2025, granted custody parole to Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Alias Engineer Rashid), an accused in the Kashmir terror funding case, to attend the upcoming Parliament budget session.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan with Advocates Vikhyat Oberoi, Aditya Wadhwa, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash, Ravi Sharma, Jagriti Pandey, Punya Rekha Angara, Vasundhara N., Sana Singh, Aman Akhtar, Vinayak Gautam and Hasnain KhwajaFor Respondent: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik with Advocates Ayush Aggarwal, K. Saleem, K.P. Rustom Khan and Yatharth SharmaCase Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v NIA (CRL.A.-299/2025)
Please Login or Register
