ibn sultan
NEW DELHI: A division bench of the Delhi high court on Friday delivered a split verdict on a petition by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, alias Rashid Engineer, seeking waiver of the travel expenses incurred to attend the Parliament session and asked for the case to be placed before the chief justice for constitution of an appropriate bench.
“My brother (justice Vivek Chaudhary) and I have not been able to concur in the manner in which the application is to be disposed of. The observations are divergent,” justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said on Friday, while pronouncing the verdict.
Justice Vivek Chaudhary added that justice Bhambani had allowed the application while he had ended up rejecting it.
“Since we both have given separate judgments, let the matter be placed before the chief justice for the constitution of an appropriate bench,” justice Chaudhary said.
A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.
Rashid Engineer, an Independent MP and president of the Awami Ittehad Party (AIP) was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case in 2019. In its charge sheet, NIA claimed that the accused were involved in using illicit funds to fuel unrest and separatism in Jammu and Kashmir.
Rashid had approached the high court against the trial court’s July 22 order, which allowed him to attend the monsoon session of Parliament from July 24 to August 4 on the condition that he bears the costs incurred for his travel from jail.
Rashid said the jail authority raised a bill of ₹1.44 lakh per day in the name of conveyance and security, and this acted as an impediment in discharge of his public duties as an MP.
NIA opposed the petition, stating that “public duty” could not be a justification for exempting a jailed accused from bearing travel costs in custody.
Terming the order as “just” and “reasonable”, NIA in its affidavit filed through special public prosecutor Akshai Malik and advocate Khawar Saleem said, “The public duty of the appellant/accused does not negate the requirement on the appellant to bear the reasonable costs for travel and logistical arrangements while in custody. The imposition of the conditions to impose special cost is reasonable and just in the circumstances of this case.”
