
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, issued a notice to its registrar general to ascertain the appropriate judicial forum for adjudicating the bail petition of Jammu and Kashmir Member of Parliament Rashid Engineer in a case concerning alleged terror financing.
Justice Vikas Mahajan presided over Rashid’s plea, wherein the petitioner contended that the procedural lacunae had left him without a viable legal recourse. Specifically, he argued that the NIA court, which was handling his bail application, had refrained from issuing a ruling due to its lack of designation as a special MP-MLA court, thereby creating a jurisdictional ambiguity following his election to the Lok Sabha.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed Rashid’s request for interim bail to facilitate his participation in the ongoing parliamentary session, asserting that no statutory provision confers an automatic right to bail upon legislators. However, the agency’s counsel apprised the court that the registrar general had already petitioned the Supreme Court for interpretative guidance regarding the assignment of judicial competence in such circumstances.
Further, the court was informed that in November of the previous year, the NIA had proactively submitted a formal representation to the registrar general, advocating for the NIA court’s designation as a competent tribunal for cases involving members of the legislature.
“It is deemed appropriate to issue notice to the registrar general of the court to ascertain the status of the administrative order and obtain clarification on this issue. Issue notice,” stated Justice Mahajan, who scheduled the matter for further deliberation on February 6.
In the primary petition, Rashid urged the High Court to either mandate the expeditious resolution of his pending bail application by the NIA court or, alternatively, to exercise its own jurisdiction and adjudicate the matter directly.
On December 24 of the preceding year, Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh had sought a directive from the district judge to transfer Rashid’s case to a court designated for cases involving legislators. However, rather than ruling on the substantive bail application, he dismissed Rashid’s plea requesting an order on the matter.
Following the district judge’s referral of the case back to him, the trial judge concluded that he was procedurally constrained to adjudicate only on ancillary applications and lacked the jurisdictional authority to determine the bail petition, thereby leaving Rashid’s legal predicament unresolved.
With the High Court’s intervention, the forthcoming proceedings are anticipated to furnish definitive clarity on the jurisdictional conundrum and establish the appropriate judicial forum for adjudicating Rashid’s bail plea.