Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), strongly opposed the petition filed by Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Sheikh Abdul Rashid, an accused in the Kashmir Terror Funding Case.

During Friday’s proceedings, Luthra emphasized that the legal precedent set in the Kalmadi case left no room for further consideration. He underscored that relief had previously been granted only for election campaigning and medical grounds, beyond which no additional concessions were permissible.

Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over the bench, acknowledged that while parole is not a right afforded to an accused, courts retain discretionary powers. However, he cautioned that such discretion would be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Following the arguments, the court reserved its judgment.

The bench observed that the status report relied solely on the Kalmadi case and lacked additional supporting material. It reiterated that the Kalmadi judgment clarified that an accused had no vested right to seek such relief. In response, Luthra acknowledged the precedent and noted his inquiry into guidelines for parliamentarians, which indicated that parole is permissible in specific cases. However, Justice Mahajan clarified that parole applies only post-conviction, whereas Rashid remains an undertrial.

Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, also appearing for the NIA, argued that non-participation in assembly proceedings is a direct consequence of criminal prosecution. He asserted that parliamentarians facing criminal proceedings could not claim the rights and privileges typically extended to legislators. Citing the Panwari Lal case, he contended that an MP, once arrested or lawfully detained, could not demand attendance at parliamentary sessions.

Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Rashid, pointed out that the NIA had not opposed Rashid’s interim relief for election campaigning. He further argued that Rashid had been granted interim bail even after a similar plea for attending parliamentary sessions had previously been dismissed. Consequently, the court scheduled the next hearing for February 10 or 11, instructing the NIA to submit a detailed reply.

During the proceedings, Luthra highlighted that the Union Budget had already been presented and that security considerations were paramount. He stressed that allowing Rashid to attend the session would necessitate an armed escort, which is not permissible within parliamentary premises. Furthermore, he raised concerns over Rashid’s alleged misuse of phone communications, arguing that security protocols and third-party regulations, beyond the NIA’s control, must also be taken into account.

When questioned by the court, Luthra firmly opposed granting custody parole, arguing that Rashid’s application lacked a clear and specific purpose, merely citing his role as a constituency representative. In response, Hariharan contended that Rashid had secured a significant electoral victory and was previously permitted to campaign without influencing anyone. He concluded by emphasizing the necessity of Rashid’s presence in parliamentary proceedings.