New Delhi: The Delhi High Court registrar general has written to the Supreme Court over the issue of jurisdiction of the court which should ideally hear jailed J&K MP Engineer Rashid’s bail plea in a NIA case.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the NIA, informed Justice Vikas Mahajan that the senior high court official sought the Supreme Court’s indulgence over the issue of jurisdiction.
The issue arose after a NIA court said it couldn’t hear the bail plea of the jailed MP, facing terror charges, as it lacked jurisdiction. On the other hand, the statute doesn’t allow courts designated to try MPs and MLAs to hear cases probed by the National Investigation Agency.
Justice Mahajan issued notice to its registrar general on the issue after Rashid said he was left without any remedy after the NIA court dealing with his bail application “left him in a limbo” post his election to the Lok Sabha last year saying it wasn’t a special MP/MLA court.
Luthra opposed Rashid’s plea for interim bail to attend the ongoing Parliament session, arguing he had no such “right” as a parliamentarian.
The court was informed that in November last year, the agency made a representation to the registrar general on the issue of designation of the NIA court as a court which could hear MP/MLA cases.
“It is deemed appropriate to issue notice to the registrar general of the court to ascertain the status as regard the administrative order and clarification on the issue. Issue notice,” said Justice Mahajan.
The matter would be heard on February 6.
In the alternative, Rashid sought custody parole during the budget session of the Parliament, which began on January 31 and concluded on April 4.
Rashid was elected from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and has been lodged in Tihar Jail since 2019 after the NIA arrested him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror-funding case.
When Luthra opposed grant of regular bail to Rashid, senior advocate N Hairharan, representing the MP, said at the current stage he only sought interim bail to attend the parliamentary proceedings and the main bail plea could be taken up later.
Hariharan said there were no complaints of bail condition violations when Rashid was released on interim bail ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.
“There may be no right but (court’s) discretion is there. Can we contemplate a state like this? MP/MLA court was created to provide speedy disposal. Adjournment was given (by NIA court) and I am left in a limbo since September. Can my constituency be left without representation?” asked Hariharan.
Luthra said the main petition was not maintainable and Rashid should have filed an appeal as per the NIA Act for redressal.
In his main petition, Rashid urged the high court to either direct the expeditious disposal of his pending bail plea by the NIA court or decide the matter itself.
In response to the main petition, the NIA said being an MP, Rashid was a “highly influential person” who could influence witnesses and hamper trial.
The trial was under progress with 21 prosecution witnesses of the total 248 witnesses being examined and there was no delay on the prosecution’s part, it said.
It alleged Rashid used public platforms to “propagate separatist and secessionist ideology” while providing sustenance and cover to members of various terrorist organisations and militants and he did not satisfy the twin tests for grant of bail under UAPA.
“In 2016, the petitioner actively participated in anti-national activities in the Kashmir Valley along with other accused persons. The petitioner had also been receiving funds from abroad including from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UK and had connections with JKLF and its overseas branches,” the reply said.
The NIA said there was no material change in circumstances to consider granting bail to Rashid after dismissal of similar pleas earlier. He misused the telephone facility in Tihar jail, added the NIA reply.
While opposing the interim bail, NIA said it was a classic case of misuse of the provision which ought to be used sparingly when intolerable grief and suffering was displayed by the accused concerned.
It said his election as a parliamentarian could not be used as a tool for getting relief.
