New Delhi, February 4 (PTI) — The Delhi High Court's Registrar General has written to the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdictional issue surrounding the bail plea of jailed Jammu and Kashmir Member of Parliament (MP) Rashid Engineer in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case.
During a hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the NIA, informed Justice Vikas Mahajan that the Registrar General had sought the Supreme Court's guidance on which court should ideally hear the bail application, given the complex jurisdictional question.
The dispute arose after an NIA court declined to hear Rashid’s bail plea, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The court argued that, under existing statutes, courts designated to try cases involving MPs and MLAs cannot hear matters investigated by the NIA.
Rashid, who faces terror charges, claimed that he was left in legal limbo after his election to the Lok Sabha in 2024. He argued that the NIA court’s refusal to hear his bail plea left him without any recourse. Justice Mahajan took note of this and issued a notice to the Registrar General, seeking clarity on the administrative order that prevents the NIA court from handling cases involving elected lawmakers.
Luthra opposed Rashid’s request for interim bail, arguing that being a parliamentarian did not entitle him to such a right. He contended that Rashid had no inherent claim to bail simply due to his status as an MP.
In November 2024, the NIA had already written to the Registrar General, suggesting that a special NIA court be designated to handle cases involving MPs and MLAs. Justice Mahajan, acknowledging the complexity of the situation, directed that notice be issued to the Registrar General to clarify the administrative status of the issue.
The case will be heard again on February 6.
As an alternative, Rashid has also sought custody parole to attend the ongoing Budget session of Parliament, which began on January 31 and will conclude on April 4. Rashid was elected as an MP from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He has been in Tihar Jail since 2019, after his arrest by the NIA in connection with a 2017 terror-funding case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
While Luthra opposed the grant of regular bail, Rashid’s lawyer, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, clarified that they were only seeking interim bail to allow Rashid to attend parliamentary proceedings. Hariharan stressed that the main bail plea could be addressed later. He also pointed out that when Rashid was granted interim bail before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, there were no reported violations of the bail conditions.
Hariharan further questioned whether it was fair for Rashid’s constituency to remain unrepresented due to the lack of a resolution in his bail case. "Can my constituency be left without representation?" he asked.
In response, Luthra argued that the main petition was not maintainable and that Rashid should have filed an appeal under the NIA Act to resolve the issue.
Rashid’s main petition urged the high court to expedite the disposal of his pending bail plea or, alternatively, for the court to make a decision on the matter itself.
In its response, the NIA highlighted concerns over Rashid’s influence as a sitting MP. The agency argued that his position made him a highly influential figure capable of influencing witnesses and obstructing the trial. The NIA also accused Rashid of using public platforms to promote separatist and secessionist ideologies, alleging that he provided cover to militant groups and terrorists, with connections to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK, as well as the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF).
The agency further stated that there had been no material change in circumstances since previous bail pleas had been rejected. It also accused Rashid of misusing telephone facilities in Tihar Jail, undermining the case for his bail.
The NIA strongly opposed Rashid’s request for interim bail, calling it a misuse of legal provisions that should only be granted in exceptional cases of "intolerable grief and suffering." The agency argued that his election as a parliamentarian should not be used as a tool to seek bail relief.
The next hearing is scheduled for February 6.
