Inside the Delhi High Court’s Conditional Nod: MP Engineer Rashid Gets 'In-Custody' Access to Parliament

The Background

Engineer Rashid, a Member of Parliament from Jammu and Kashmir’s Baramulla constituency, has been in judicial custody since 2019. He was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with a 2017 terror funding case.

Despite being incarcerated, Rashid secured a surprising victory in the 2024 general elections, becoming one of the rare undertrial politicians to be elected to Parliament. As a sitting MP, he sought permission to attend the ongoing budget session in March–April 2025, not on interim bail or parole, but while remaining in custody.

This unusual ask prompted the Delhi High Court to evaluate a delicate constitutional question: Can a jailed MP, charged under anti-terror laws, be allowed to fulfil his legislative duties while under custody?

What the Court Decided

A division bench comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted limited relief. The Court permitted Rashid to attend the second part of the Parliament's Budget Session—strictly “in-custody”—from March 26 to April 4, under heavy supervision and without any liberties that may compromise judicial integrity.

Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:

1. Transit Protocol: The Director General (Prisons) was directed to escort Rashid from Tihar Jail to the Parliament on each sitting day. At the Parliament complex, custody would be temporarily transferred to Parliament security/marshals during session hours, post which he would be returned to prison the same day.

2. No Communications Allowed: The Court strictly barred Rashid from using any phone or internet services during this period. Additionally, he is prohibited from interacting with the media or any individuals outside the scope of his parliamentary duties.

3. Inside Parliament Only: Rashid’s movements are confined solely to the Lok Sabha premises. Any interactions must directly relate to his responsibilities as an MP. Loitering, unsanctioned meetings, or political engagements beyond the purview of Parliament are expressly forbidden.

4. Expenses Borne by MP: All costs associated with his transportation and security arrangements are to be borne by Rashid himself.

5. Judicial Custody Not Compromised: The Bench emphasized that Rashid's participation in Parliament is not to be interpreted as dilution of custody. Even if the sessions extend beyond usual hours, he must return to prison the same night.

6. No Precedent Set: Importantly, the Court clarified that this decision is not to be treated as a precedent. Any future similar applications would be judged on their own merits.

This order is significant for several reasons.

First, it highlights the judiciary’s attempt to maintain the constitutional balance between individual rights and national security. Rashid remains an undertrial, facing serious allegations. Yet, he is also a lawfully elected representative with a democratic mandate.

Second, it opens a broader discussion about the legal status of undertrials in India’s electoral system. Under existing law, undertrials (as opposed to convicted individuals) are not barred from contesting elections. This legal grey area has now found new expression in how elected undertrials exercise their parliamentary duties.

Third, the decision draws attention to the lack of clear statutory mechanisms to deal with such extraordinary situations. While the Court took a pragmatic approach by granting controlled access, it also threw the spotlight on how India’s legal and institutional systems are yet to fully evolve mechanisms for incarcerated legislators.

Court’s Reasoning: A Careful Balancing Act

The Court acknowledged that, under Indian law, being an undertrial does not disqualify an individual from either contesting or holding office, even for serious offences. As Rashid had been duly elected and administered the oath of office, he had a constitutional responsibility to represent his constituents in Parliament.

Quoting the order:

"As a Member of Parliament, the appellant owes to the people of his constituency the duty and responsibility to represent them in Parliament."

Yet, the Bench took care to not let this duty undermine the fact that Rashid is an accused under the UAPA, still facing trial. The Court stated that it was "confident" the State machinery could uphold the integrity of his custody while allowing him to attend Parliament strictly under the specified conditions.

The judiciary also asked the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha to ensure compliance with all procedural safeguards to ensure that Rashid’s temporary transfer to Parliament does not compromise judicial custody.

What Triggered This Petition

Rashid’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, had initially sought custody parole, arguing that their client’s absence from Parliament would amount to disenfranchising the people who voted for him. Interestingly, they did not seek interim bail or unrestricted movement—only a structured, supervised arrangement allowing Rashid to discharge his legislative duties.

After a single judge earlier allowed Rashid custody parole for two days in February to attend Parliament, the matter returned to the High Court when the Special NIA Court rejected a similar plea for the March-April session.

The High Court's latest ruling is a direct response to that rejection, allowing Rashid a supervised presence in the House without compromising on national security considerations.

The Bigger Picture: Legal Questions Ahead

This case raises several thorny legal questions:

• Should Parliamentarians in judicial custody be allowed to participate in legislative processes?

• What institutional mechanisms should be in place to manage such situations consistently?

• Can the denial of such access be interpreted as infringing upon the rights of voters who elected an incarcerated representative?

There are no easy answers. What’s clear is that such cases will increasingly come under judicial scrutiny, especially as political dynamics shift and voters continue to elect candidates with pending criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Engineer Rashid v. State is a reflection of judicial pragmatism amidst a complex intersection of constitutional rights and national security. While Rashid has been granted temporary access to Parliament, the order reinforces the message that such exceptions are not blanket permissions but heavily conditional allowances.

It’s a ruling that will likely echo in future cases involving the rights and limits of undertrial legislators. For lawyers and lawmakers alike, it sets the stage for deeper discussions on electoral reform, custody rights, and democratic representation.