Delhi HC Reserves Order on Engineer Rashid’s Plea to Modify Expenses for Attending Parliament
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on a plea filed by Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, also known as Engineer Rashid, seeking modification of conditions requiring him to bear travel and security expenses for attending Parliament while in custody.
Rashid, currently on custody parole, has challenged the March 25 order that directed him to deposit ₹4 lakh towards such expenses. His counsel argued that while parole allows him to attend Parliament, the cost condition makes it practically impossible.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard submissions from Rashid’s lawyers, the Delhi government, and the NIA before reserving the order.
Arguments by the State and NIA
Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Bahari, representing the Delhi government, submitted that 15 Delhi Armed Police personnel are required to escort Rashid from Tihar Jail to Parliament and back, with daily expenses amounting to ₹1.45 lakh. He argued that these costs must be borne by Rashid, as the security is provided by the police, not jail authorities.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the NIA, opposed Rashid’s plea, contending that the March 25 order was passed with Rashid’s consent.
Arguments by Rashid’s Counsel
Senior advocate N Hariharan, assisted by advocate Vikhyat Oberoi, argued that as an elected MP, Rashid has a duty to represent his constituency. He maintained that the imposition of expenses effectively negates the relief of custody parole. “It is like giving with one hand and taking away with the other,” he told the court.
Hariharan further argued that the jail rules do not contemplate such salary-linked expenses and that no valid notification justifies the imposition. He pointed out that earlier, Rashid had been allowed to attend Parliament without being asked to bear such costs.
Observations of the Court
The bench noted that Rashid is on custody parole, not interim bail, and questioned whether custody parole to attend Parliament is a matter of right. It observed that normally, MPs’ travel to Delhi is borne by the government, but whether the same applies in custody parole situations must be tested against parliamentary rules.
The court also remarked that while Rashid has sought modification, not review, of the March 25 order, the issue remains whether such costs can be imposed when the relief granted was limited to custody parole.
Next Steps
After hearing both sides, the court directed authorities to furnish the basis of the cost calculation. It has now reserved its order on Rashid’s plea seeking waiver of expenses.
