The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on the plea of Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh Alias Engineer Rashid seeking modification of expenses to attend the parliament session in custody.
The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on the plea of Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh Alias Engineer Rashid seeking modification of expenses to attend the parliament session in custody. MP Rashid Engineer has been granted custody parole with the cost of travelling, security, etc to attend the Parliament session. Engineer Rashid is seeking a modification of the cost condition.
Division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani reserved order after hearing submissions of counsel for Engineer Rashid, Delhi State and NIA.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ritesh Bahari appeared for Delhi State and submitted that 15 security personnel of Delhi Armed Police (DAP) were required to escort MP Rashid Engineer for his travel from Tihar Jail to Parliament and thereafter back to Tihar Jail.
He also submitted that the expenses are to be borne by the applicant, Engineer Rashid. The expenses for one day are 1.45 lakh. The court said, “We are not giving him interim bail. He is in custody parole. If he is on custody parole, then the expenses are to be borne by the jail authorities. We are not giving him the liberty back.”
APP Bahri submitted that the Transport and security is provided by the Delhi armed police not by the jail authorities. Police can charge the expenses as per the notification. Senior advocate N Hariharan alongwith Vikhyat Oberoi appeared for Engineer Rashid. He submitted that the Salary is not contemplated in Jail rules. Notification can’t cut the rules.
The Court said, “ Then you should challenge the notification. Expenses are not included salary.” Senior advocate Hariharan contended that there is no notification. It is in relation to outside travelling. At this point, the court said that It was a discretionary order. You were permitted to attend the parliament. You agreed to put any condition.
Senior advocate argued that if I (Engineer Rashid) am granted custody parole, why should I be burdened with 15 salaries. If I (Rashid) am paying the amount, will it be going deducted from their salary, senior Advocate questioned. The Court asked, “Who bears the travelling expenses if someone comes to attend Parliament from Kashmir or Trivandrum?”
It was submitted that these expenses are borne by the government. The Court said that for this, we have to look at the parliamentary rules as to who bears the expenses? The Court asked the counsel for Rashid, ” Question is whether he is entitled to attend the parliament? When he is in custody, is there any case that a custody parole is made out to attend parliament?
Senior Siddharth Luthra appeared for the NIA and opposed the application of Engineer Rashid.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday had asked the State authorities to furnish the basis of the calculation of expenses for taking MP Rashid Engineer to Parliament to attend the Session and back to the central Jail. Engineer Rashid is seeking modification of the condition of paying the cost of travelling, security personnel, etc.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, alongwith advocate Vikhyat Oberoi, argued for Rashid and submitted that I (Rashid Engineer) am duty-bound to perform my public duty as an MP. Senior advocate on query had submitted that Modification of conditions can be sought. Order itself says that the applicant may approach the court for modification. Court said that You have been granted custody parole.
Senior advocate Hariharan said that it is like giving with one hand, taken away by the other hand. Custody parole granted in alternative imposing a cost of travelling. He further submitted that the state cannot impose a condition that makes me it difficult to attend the parliament despite grant to custody parole.
Court said that tomorrow you will ask permission to visit constituency, to meet constituents. No my lords, senior advocate said.
The court said that the MP has no right to attend parliament, it has decided by the Supreme Court. Anything can be done by the Supreme Court. Court said, “You have two submissions. One you have the right of custody parole, second, it is without any cost.”
After hearing the submissions, the court has asked that the authorities explain the basis for the calculation of expenses being charged to the applicant.
On August 6, It was submitted by senior counsel on behalf of Rashid that he is unable to represent the people of his constituency due to this condition imposed on him. Engineer Rashid is seeking modification of March 25 order imposing a condition to deposit Rs. 4 Lakh as expenses for travelling etc. The Court had asked the counsel Tell us whether it is maintainable for modification or in review?? Can we hear or you to go before the bigger bench?
Senior Hariharan said that Rashid is not challenging the merit of the order. I just want modification of the cost imposed.
I (Rashid) am not challenging the order, I am not seeking review of the court. I am just seeking a modification, senior counsel submitted.
Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra appeared for NIA and submitted that the order passed by the court was a consented order.
The senior counsel for Engineer Rashid had submitted that the interim bail was argued. We agreed for custody parole, not the cost of travelling. He was granted parole without a cost earlier. He was asked to pay the expenses from the third time. Earlier, he was allowed to attend the parliament without paying any cost.
The bench said that whenever the custody parole is granted, the expenses are borne by the person who got relief.
The bench said that we referred to the Supreme Court order in the Tahir Husain case. Stated has computed some expenses. How can this be justifiable before us?
On the last hearing, another bench has asked the counsel for Rashid to press the modification application before the concerned bench that had passed the order on March 25.