New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said the courts and the Lok Sabha Speaker are not powerless and are strong enough to keep Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, who is in jail in a terror funding case, bound by the law in Parliament.
The HC, which later reserved its order on the plea of the Independent MP from Baramulla to attend the ongoing Parliament session, discounted the National Investigation Agency’s fears that they will not have any control over the accused once he enters the precincts of Parliament.
“I would only say let’s not see ghosts, let’s not feel so powerless that ‘oh my God inside Parliament he will do this or that’. He will be in our custody. Our arms are long enough and strong enough to keep him in line.
“I speak for myself that I am not worried that he will not obey the law despite the division bench saying don’t do this or that,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said during the hearing.
After submissions by the NIA and the counsel for Rashid, a bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Bhambhani said it would pass a detailed order.
The high court said the NIA’s apprehensions can be dealt with by imposing appropriate conditions on Rashid in case he is allowed to attend the Parliament session, which will go on till April 4, while remaining in custody.
While Rashid’s plea had sought custody parole to attend Parliament, his counsel on Tuesday said they are only urging for permission to attend the House in custody and assured the court that the MP would obey the conditions and order of the court in letter and spirit.
The bench said the courts and the Lok Sabha Speaker are not powerless and one should not undermine the position and the power of the Speaker and of the Secretary General to enforce discipline inside Parliament.
“We are not granting him bail here. He is in custody, we are sending our officers with him throughout, except where they are not allowed.
“Then he is in the confines of the highest temple of democracy, he is inside Parliament. At least don’t undermine the position and the power of the Lok Sabha Speaker and of the Secretary General to enforce discipline inside Parliament. You (NIA) say no he will not be in control. How?” Justice Bhambhani said.
As the NIA counsel urged the court to see the role attributed to the accused in the case, the bench said, “We do not for a moment undermine the seriousness and the heinousness of the allegations against him. Be sure of that. National security is above everything, no question about that.”
The court asked the NIA to suggest additional conditions, which it feels appropriate to be imposed on Rashid.
“Can we take special permission from the Secretary General or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha that one prison official or police official in plain clothing will remain with him even inside the Parliament,” it said, adding that Rashid will have to undertake that he will remain true to his oath as a parliamentarian.
The court added, “There is a single judge’s order (earlier granting custody parole to Rashid to attend Parliament for two days). If you (NIA) have any further apprehension, then please tell us. We will include it as additional conditions but be confident of the court’s powers and the Speaker’s powers. Don’t come from a point of fear that he will do this or that. Nothing will happen. We are there…. You are telling us to ignore the fact that he is an elected representative of the people”.
The bench also told Rashid’s counsel that he should not do anything that would become a cause of concern for the State to think that he did not abide by the conditions.
Rashid’s counsel said he was not asking for custody parole and only urging to be allowed to attend the session. He assured the court that the MP would obey the conditions and order of the court in letter and spirit.
Facing strong opposition from the NIA, Rashid’s counsel argued that there are marshals in Parliament and the moment he would switch on his microphone to utter anything, his mic would be taken away and he would be thrown out of the House.
To this, Justice Singh said, “Then it will become a national issue that his mic has been taken away and he has been thrown out by the marshals”.
Rashid’s counsel told the high court that he would soon challenge a trial court’s March 19 order dismissing his regular bail plea in the case.
Rashid, who is facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a 2017 terror funding case, has challenged a March 10 trial court order refusing him custody parole or interim bail to attend Lok Sabha proceedings till April 4.
In the reply filed to the appeal on March 17, the NIA said Rashid couldn’t be allowed to use his status as MP to “get away from rigours of imprisonment”.
The NIA argued that Rashid could neither be granted interim bail nor allowed custody parole as he had no enforceable right to attend the Parliament session while in lawful custody.
Rashid’s counsel earlier urged the high court to permit him to attend the ongoing Parliament session on custody parole, akin to a previous two-day reprieve granted to him.
Custody parole entails a prisoner being escorted by armed police personnel to the place of visit.
The Baramulla MP, who defeated Omar Abdullah in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, is facing trial in a terror funding case with allegations that he funded separatists and terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir.
He has been lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail since 2019 after the NIA arrested him in the 2017 terror-funding case. He was granted interim bail for one month in September last year to campaign in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly election.
According to the NIA’s FIR, Rashid’s name cropped up during the interrogation of businessman and co-accused Zahoor Watali.
After being chargesheeted in October 2019, a special NIA court framed charges against Rashid and others in March 2022 under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121 (waging war against the government), and 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code and for offences relating to terrorist acts and terror funding under UAPA.
