The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed jailed MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh to attend the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament while remaining in custody.

A bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered the director general (prisons) to send Sheikh to attend the session from March 26 to April 4 with a police escort.

However, the bench said that Sheikh would not be allowed to meet anyone, except within the premises of the Lok Sabha and in relation to his role as an MP, according to Bar and Bench. He would also not be permitted to talk to the media, it added.

The Baramulla MP, who is popularly known as Engineer Rashid, has been in jail since August 2019 in connection with a terror-funding case filed by the National Investigation Agency. He has been held under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Sheikh contested and won the 2024 Lok Sabha election from Baramulla while in jail, defeating National Conference leader Omar Abdullah.

The Budget Session began on January 31 and will conclude on April 4. There was a break from February 13 to March 10.

Earlier in February, Sheikh moved a petition in a trial court seeking custody parole to attend the session. The trial court rejected the application on March 10.

Sheikh subsequently approached the High Court.

During proceedings in the High Court, advocate Hariharan, representing the Baramulla MP, urged the bench to allow Sheikh to attend Parliament, citing a previous order of a single-judge bench that allowed him relief on an earlier occasion.

Sheikh was granted custody parole for two hours to take oath in Parliament on July 5. He was also released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail in October to allow him to campaign for the Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir.

However, Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, representing the National Investigation Agency, opposed the petition saying: “If he makes a political statement, it would be a problem.”

Bar and Bench quoted Thakare as having added: “These types of offenders [persons accused under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act] need to be treated differently.”

In response, Bhambhani asked if Thakare wanted the bench to ignore the fact that Sheikh was an elected parliamentarian. Conditions could be imposed to take care of security concerns that may arise if the legislator were allowed to go to Parliament, the judge was quoted as having said.

“Is a member of Parliament a flight risk?” Bar and Bench quoted Bhambhani as saying. “We can prevent him from using the cellphone. We have no jurisdiction in the Parliament, the speaker and chairman will take care of what happens in the Parliament.”

Hariharan added that police officers in plain clothes were allowed to come inside with Sheikh earlier.

The High Court then issued directions to allow Rashid to attend Parliament.

“The expense for the aforesaid travel and other arrangements shall be borne by the appellant,” Bar and Bench quoted the High Court as saying in its order.

The bench also noted that its order in the matter was not intended to constitute a precedent. “…any subsequent prayer seeking similar relief on similar grounds would be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law,” it added.

Centre seeking Rs 1.4 lakh per day for travel: Sheikh tells HC

After the order allowing Sheikh to attend the Budget session, the legislator once again approached the High Court, claiming that the Union government was asking him to pay Rs 1.4 lakh per day as expenses for his commute from Tihar jail to Parliament, Bar and Bench reported on Thursday.

In its Tuesday order, the High Court had not specified any specific amount to be paid for his travel.

In his appeal, the legislator sought that the condition be removed, according to Bar and Bench.

On Thursday, another bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard Sheikh’s appeal.

“I was told yesterday [by the government] that I am required to pay Rs 1.4 lakh per day to attend the Parliament session,” Bar and Bench quoted Sheikh’s counsel as saying. “He is attending the session subject to the payment of travel expenses.”

In response, the bench asked: “Will court determine the amount borne by the government? Can this issue be dealt with in your appeal?”

Sheikh’s counsel then said that he was seeking the deletion of the condition and not a reduction of the expense. “Twice I was allowed to attend without any such condition,” the counsel said.

It also noted that the residents of his constituency had crowdfunded his expenses the last time he had to attend Parliament in this manner, Bar and Bench reported.

“Today I am attending, tomorrow I will not have money,” his counsel said. “Baramulla will go unrepresented.”

The High Court listed the matter for Friday.