NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday delivered a split verdict on the petition of jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, also known as Rashid Engineer, who had sought a waiver of travel expenses incurred while attending the Parliament session. The bench, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, differed in their conclusions, prompting the matter to be referred to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for constitution of an appropriate bench to hear the case afresh.

During proceedings, Justice Bhambhani noted, “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 Chaudhary, while explaining the split, added that Justice Bhambhani had allowed Rashid Engineer’s application, whereas he himself had rejected it. “Since we both have given separate judgments, let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate bench,” Justice Chaudhary said. A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited for publication.

Rashid Engineer, an Independent MP and president of the Awami Ittehad Party (AIP), has been in judicial custody since 2019 after being arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In its charge sheet, the NIA alleged that Engineer and his associates were involved in using illicit funds to fuel unrest and separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.

The present plea arises from a trial court order dated July 22, which allowed Rashid Engineer to attend the monsoon session of Parliament, scheduled from July 24 to August 4, on the condition that he bear the costs incurred for his travel while in custody. According to the petitioner, the jail authorities raised a bill of ₹1.44 lakh per day, covering conveyance and security arrangements. Engineer argued that this financial burden acted as a significant impediment to fulfilling his parliamentary duties and that attending the session was a part of his public duty as a legislator.

The NIA opposed the petition, maintaining that “public duty” does not exempt a jailed accused from bearing the reasonable costs of travel while in custody. In its affidavit, filed through special public prosecutor Akshai Malik and advocate Khawar Saleem, the agency described the condition as “just and reasonable,” emphasizing that logistical arrangements for a person in custody inherently incur additional costs. The affidavit stated, “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.”

The split verdict underscores the complexities surrounding the rights of incarcerated public representatives to perform their parliamentary duties while balancing the legal and administrative obligations imposed by custodial conditions. By referring the matter to the Chief Justice, the High Court aims to establish a clear precedent on whether MPs in custody can be exempted from such costs and under what circumstances.

Rashid Engineer’s plea highlights broader legal questions about the intersection of parliamentary responsibilities and custodial constraints. While MPs are expected to fulfill their duties to represent their constituents in legislative sessions, law enforcement and judicial authorities are tasked with ensuring security, compliance with UAPA provisions, and the orderly administration of justice. This balance between public duty and custodial obligations has been debated in previous instances but remains an evolving area of law.

Observers note that the outcome of the case could have wider implications for other legislators facing legal challenges or imprisonment while holding public office. It may also influence how custodial and logistical costs are assessed for MPs attending Parliament under judicial restrictions, potentially establishing a framework for cost exemptions or adjustments based on the nature of the charges, length of custody, and security requirements.

In conclusion, while the Delhi High Court has yet to reach a final determination on Rashid Engineer’s plea, the split verdict reflects a careful judicial consideration of competing principles: the obligation of an MP to serve the public through legislative duties and the state’s responsibility to recover costs incurred due to enhanced security and administrative arrangements for a person in custody. The matter is now awaiting reassignment to an appropriate bench, which will provide a definitive ruling on this contentious issue.