Patiala House Court allows Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend upcoming budget session

The court held that there was no justification to deny permission for attending the upcoming budget session, particularly when the relief sought was confined to the same terms and conditions already imposed.

Accordingly, the application was allowed.

At the same time, the court made it clear that the question of travel costs and related expenses would remain subject to the final outcome of the appeal pending before the Delhi High Court.

Background

Rashid, an elected legislator, is currently facing criminal proceedings and is in judicial custody.

He has been lodged in Tihar jail since 2019 in an eight-year-old terror funding case.

He was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the NIA case lodged in 2017 against Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed and other “secessionist and separatist” leaders, and a special NIA court in Delhi framed charges against Rashid in March 2022.

He had earlier approached the trial court seeking temporary permission to attend parliamentary sessions so that he could discharge his constitutional and legislative duties.

In earlier orders, the court had allowed him limited relief to participate in parliamentary proceedings, while imposing strict conditions to ensure that the ongoing criminal process was not prejudiced and that security and procedural safeguards were maintained.

With the budget session scheduled to begin on January 28, 2026, Rashid once again moved the trial court seeking continuation of the earlier arrangement for the duration of the session.

Arguments

Appearing for Engineer Rashid, advocates Vikhyat Oberoi, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash and Ravi Sharma submitted that attending the budget session was not a matter of personal convenience but a constitutional obligation flowing from his position as an elected representative.

The counsel argued that the court had already found it appropriate to grant similar permission in the past and that there was no change in circumstances warranting a different view.

The defence emphasised that Rashid had complied with all earlier directions of the court and that sufficient safeguards were already in place to prevent any misuse of liberty.

On the issue of expenses, the counsel sought clarity regarding travel arrangements, while acknowledging that the question was already under consideration before the high court.

The prosecution, while opposing any blanket relaxation, urged the court to ensure that any permission granted remained strictly within the framework of earlier orders.

It was pointed out that an appeal relating to ancillary aspects of the permission, including expenses, was pending before the Delhi High Court and that the trial court should not pre-empt that adjudication.