Rs 4 Lakh Cost for Engineer Rashid's Parliament Parole: Delhi HC Questions Police
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, asked Delhi Police to explain the basis of the travel cost imposed on Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, as a condition for granting him custody parole to attend Parliament.
The division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing Rashid Sheikh’s plea challenging a trial court’s order that he must deposit Rs 4 lakh with prison authorities to cover travel and security expenses as a condition for custody parole to attend Parliament.
Appearing for Rashid, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that the condition imposed was disproportionate as it undermined Rashid’s ability to represent the people of his constituency. He contended that while the court had granted Rashid custody parole to perform his duties, the condition imposed along with the parole stopped him from performing them.
"Any person who holds an office not only occupies that office but must also be authorised to perform the public duty attached to it. We reject the submission that a Member of Parliament has only privileges and no duties. This is the duty I am talking about, which has to be performed by me," the senior counsel argued.
Hearing the submissions, the court said, "It’s not a review, it’s a modification. Is it the duty of the State to make it convenient for you to attend Parliament? Therefore, you are saying that you have to be allowed to attend Parliament, provided you have been granted custody parole? What are the duties of a Parliamentarian? Today you are saying this, tomorrow you will say you want to go and canvass for the elections also."
Court then turned to the State for an explanation of the travel cost calculations.
In response, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik said, “I represent the agency (NIA). If Your Lordship wishes to go into the calculations, the State would be able to answer.”
Recording its direction, the bench said, "We have heard Mr. Hariharan at some length. During the course of the hearing, we inquired from the State as to the basis of the calculations appearing in the communication dated 26 March 2025, addressed by the Office of the Additional Commissioner, Delhi Armed Police, Central Jail, Tihar. The essence of the question is as to the basis of the various numbers and calculations. The learned APP is not available in the Court. Let the query be addressed on behalf of the State. Mr. Akshai Malik, for the NIA, submits that the State would be the appropriate authority to respond to the queries"
The matter will now be heard on August 18.
During the last hearing, Senior Advocate N Hariharan for Rashid had argued that the condition was unjust and unreasonable, stating that Rashid was unable to represent his constituency due to the condition imposed, which required him to pay daily expenses to attend the parliament.
On 31 July, the court issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on a plea filed by Rashid challenging the trial court’s order framing charges against him in a terror funding case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
In the previous hearing, the high court had sought a response from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Rashid's plea challenging a trial court order directing him to pay Rs 1.44 lakh per day for travelling to Parliament in custody between July 24 and August 4.
On July 22, the Special NIA Court at Patiala House had granted custody parole to Engineer Rashid to enable his attendance during the monsoon session of Parliament, scheduled from July 24 to August 4, subject to the condition that he bears the travel and security expenses himself.
Previously, Engineer Rashid had approached the High Court seeking custody parole to attend the parliament budget session. He argued that he was allowed to campaign for the elections without any objection from the NIA, but was not being allowed to fulfil his constitutional duties as a member of parliament. Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Engineer Rashid, had argued that a previous order had granted Rashid permission to attend the budget session for two days.
In September 2024, Engineer Rashid was granted interim bail by the Rouse Avenue Court to campaign in the elections.
The NIA had registered a case on May 30, 2017, invoking Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) and several provisions of the UAPA, 1967, against Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed and other separatist leaders, including Engineer Rashid, for allegedly fueling secessionist activities.
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 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 National Investigative Agency
Date: 12 August 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani