What Did the Delhi HC Decide on Engineer Rashid's Travel Cost Plea?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on Engineer Rashid's plea regarding travel expenses during his parliamentary attendance from jail. With differing opinions from the judges, the case raises crucial questions about the rights of incarcerated politicians. What implications does this have for parliamentary representation?
Key Takeaways
- Delhi High Court issues split verdict on travel costs.
- Engineer Rashid's plea raises questions about incarcerated politicians.
- Justice Chaudhary and Justice Bhambhani had differing opinions.
- Case to be reviewed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya.
- Implications for democratic representation and rights of MPs.
New Delhi, Nov 7 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court issued a split verdict on Friday regarding the plea from imprisoned Lok Sabha member Engineer Abdul Rashid Sheikh, representing Baramulla in Jammu and Kashmir. He sought alterations to the requirements concerning the payment of travel expenses during his parole for attending the Parliament session.
A two-judge panel, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, expressed differing views. Justice Chaudhary dismissed Engineer Rashid's request, whereas Justice Bhambhani approved it.
This case will now be forwarded to Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, who is responsible for the roster, for further instructions.
Engineer Rashid, currently detained in Delhi's Tihar Jail related to a terror funding case, requested the High Court to change an earlier ruling mandating him to pay around Rs 4 lakh to jail authorities for the costs incurred during his custodial visits to Parliament.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, representing Rashid, argued that the requirement to cover daily expenses effectively barred the Baramulla MP from fulfilling his parliamentary duties.
Hariharan emphasized that the inclusion of police officials' salaries in the cost calculation is not specified under the Delhi Prison Rules.
He also highlighted that while Rashid was ready to cover reasonable costs, including meals for escorting police officials, the salaries were beyond legal provisions.
Conversely, the Delhi Police's counsel elaborated on the Rs 4 lakh breakdown, indicating that it encompassed daily deployment charges, logistical expenses, and security measures for Rashid's travel to Parliament while in custody.
Previously, in September, the Patiala House Court allowed Rashid to vote in the Vice Presidential election while confined.
The court had established that Rashid could attend Parliament under police escort but was obligated to cover travel expenses, pending the Delhi High Court's ruling on his cost-related plea.
Engineer Rashid, head of the Awami Ittehad Party (AIP), contested the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Tihar Jail and achieved a significant victory over National Conference vice-president and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah by more than two lakh votes.
Point of View
We recognize the delicate balance between law and representation. Engineer Rashid's situation highlights the challenges faced by incarcerated politicians. It's essential to ensure that while the legal framework is upheld, the democratic rights of elected officials are not compromised. This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing dialogue between justice and representation in our political landscape.
NationPress
09/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Delhi High Court's decision regarding Engineer Rashid?
The Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on Engineer Rashid's plea about travel expenses for attending Parliament during his parole.
Why did Engineer Rashid seek modification of travel expense conditions?
Rashid argued that the requirement to pay travel costs hindered his ability to represent his constituency effectively in Parliament.
What was included in the Rs 4 lakh travel cost?
The Rs 4 lakh amount included daily deployment charges, logistical expenses, and security arrangements for Rashid's travel under police escort.
What is the significance of this court ruling?
This ruling raises important questions about the rights of incarcerated elected officials and their ability to fulfill their parliamentary duties.
Who represented Engineer Rashid in court?
Senior advocate N Hariharan represented Engineer Rashid during the proceedings.
