Delhi Court Allows MP Er Rashid to Attend Budget Session Under Custody Parole

Delhi Court Allows MP Er Rashid to Attend Budget Session Under Custody Parole

SRINAGAR: A Delhi court on Saturday permitted Baramulla Member of Parliament Engineer Rashid to attend the upcoming Budget Session of Parliament, scheduled to begin on January 28, 2026, subject to the conditions earlier imposed by the court, The Indian Express reported.

Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma allowed Rashid’s application after noting that a similar judicial arrangement had already been made following due application of mind and continued to hold the field. The court clarified that there was no justification to deny permission when the relief sought was confined to the same terms and safeguards previously laid down.

Rashid will attend the parliamentary proceedings while remaining in custody, his counsel advocate Vikhyat Oberoi confirmed. The court, however, made it clear that the issue of travel expenses and related costs would remain contingent on the outcome of an appeal currently pending before the Delhi High Court.

After hearing submissions from both sides, the court observed that earlier orders allowing Rashid to participate in parliamentary sessions had balanced his constitutional role as an elected legislator with the need to ensure that the ongoing criminal proceedings were not prejudiced. Those arrangements, the court said, warranted continuation for the forthcoming Budget Session as well.

Engineer Rashid, who has been lodged in Tihar Jail since 2019, is facing trial in an eight-year-old terror funding case. He was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case registered in 2017 against Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed and other alleged “secessionist and separatist” leaders. A special NIA court framed charges against him in March 2022.

In his application, Rashid had sought temporary permission to attend Parliament in order to discharge his constitutional and legislative responsibilities. His counsel, including advocates Vikhyat Oberoi, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash and Ravi Sharma, argued that attending the Budget Session was not a matter of personal convenience but a constitutional obligation arising from his status as an elected representative.

They submitted that Rashid had been granted similar permission in the past, had complied with all court directions, and that there had been no change in circumstances warranting a different view. The defence also emphasised that adequate safeguards were already in place to prevent any misuse of liberty.

On the question of expenses, the defence sought clarity on travel arrangements but acknowledged that the issue was already under consideration before the Delhi High Court.

The prosecution, while opposing any blanket relaxation, urged the trial court to ensure that any permission granted remained strictly within the framework of earlier orders. It also pointed out that an appeal concerning ancillary aspects of the permission, including expenses, was pending before the High Court and should not be pre-empted.

Taking these submissions into account, the court allowed the application, reiterating that Rashid’s attendance would be governed by the same conditions as before and that the question of costs would be decided separately by the High Court.