The Delhi High Court on Friday said it will conduct a preliminary hearing in January on a plea filed by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh challenging the costs imposed on him for attending Parliament while in custody.
The case came before Justice Ravinder Dudeja after a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani delivered a split verdict on Rashid’s request to modify a previous order that required him to deposit around ₹4 lakh with jail authorities to attend parliamentary sessions.
Justice Dudeja noted that he must first determine whether he should decide the matter himself or whether it should be re-heard by a larger bench in view of the split decision. “This bench needs to conduct a preliminary hearing on this aspect. List for consideration on January 14,” he said, following submissions from counsel for Rashid and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The division bench had, on November 7, issued two separate and conflicting judgments.
- Justice Vivek Chaudhary, the senior judge, held that Rashid had no right or privilege to attend Parliament proceedings while in lawful custody. He rejected the plea seeking waiver or reduction of the approximately ₹4 lakh amount earlier directed to be deposited.
- Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani disagreed, finding Rashid liable only for reasonable transportation costs, not for the expenses of police officers escorting him. He held that as an elected MP, Rashid has a “solemn obligation” to represent his constituents in the Lok Sabha.
Justice Bhambhani wrote:
“In a Parliamentary democracy, an elected Member of Parliament owes a solemn obligation to his electors, and it is his bounden duty to represent his constituents in parliamentary proceedings… The importance of that role is highlighted by the fact that when a Parliament session is convened, no less a person than the President of India calls upon Members of Parliament to attend its proceedings.”
He ruled that only the jail van and escort vehicle charges—₹1,036 and ₹1,020 per day respectively—could be demanded from Rashid, calling the State’s attempt to recover ₹1.45 lakh per day for accompanying police personnel “wholly unjustified”.
Under Section 433 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when two judges on a bench deliver conflicting opinions, the matter is referred to another judge. The proviso empowers either the original judges or the new judge to direct that the appeal be re-heard by a larger bench if required.
Rashid, the Baramulla MP who defeated former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, is facing trial in a terror-funding case. The NIA alleges he provided funds to separatists and terror groups in Kashmir.
He has been lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail since 2019 following his arrest in the 2017 NIA probe. A special NIA court framed charges against him in March 2022 under IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121 (waging war against the government), 124A (sedition), and provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In July 2024, a Delhi court permitted Rashid to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament between July 24 and August 4 with a police escort, subject to payment of the costs now under challenge.
The preliminary hearing on whether Justice Dudeja should decide the appeal or refer it to a larger bench is scheduled for January 14.
