Jammu and Kashmir Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Engineer Rashid was reportedly assaulted by transgender inmates inside Delhi's Tihar Jail following a verbal altercation that took place about a week ago. Rashid, who is lodged in Jail Number 3, sustained minor injuries from the attack. Prison sources have dismissed any claims of a planned murder conspiracy, describing such reports as baseless. Currently, only three transgender inmates are held in Jail Number 3 alongside Rashid.
Background of the dispute
The conflict reportedly arose due to ongoing tensions between Rashid and the transgender inmates. Sources reveal that the transgender prisoners have been allegedly used by jail authorities to provoke and harass Kashmiri inmates, including Rashid and others. Rashid’s party, the Awami Ittehad Party (AIP), condemned the incident, calling it a deliberate conspiracy to create a hostile environment and demanding an independent investigation.
Legal context and political profile
Engineer Rashid was arrested in 2019 in connection with an alleged terror funding case in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite being under trial, he won the 2024 Lok Sabha election from the Baramulla constituency, defeating prominent leaders. The case against him involves charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, and terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Rashid has also reported instances of deliberate targeting and humiliation of Kashmiri inmates in Tihar Jail, raising concerns over their safety and treatment.
Delhi HC reserved order on Engineer Rashid’s plea to modify custody parole expenses
Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, has been granted custody parole to attend Parliament sessions but is required to bear the travel and security expenses himself. An earlier order directed Rashid to deposit around Rs 4 lakh with jail authorities to cover these costs. Rashid filed a plea seeking modification of this cost condition, arguing that the expenses imposed make it difficult for him to perform his constitutional duties as an MP. His counsel contended that attending Parliament is a public duty, not a favour.
Court proceedings and arguments
A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard submissions from Rashid’s lawyers, Delhi State, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court questioned the state on the basis of the expense calculations, with the Additional Public Prosecutor explaining that 15 security personnel of Delhi Armed Police are needed to escort Rashid to and from Tihar Jail, resulting in high daily costs. Rashid’s counsel countered that the jail rules and notifications do not contemplate such salary expenses borne by the parolee.
The bench made clear that custody parole does not equate to interim bail and that while parole is granted, the expenses are typically borne by the person granted relief. The court referenced a Supreme Court order applicable in related cases and asked whether the condition to pay the expenses is justifiable.
After hearing all parties, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on the modification plea. Counsel for Rashid has been advised to press the modification application before the bench that originally passed the order in March. The court also indicated that questions regarding the entitlement to attend Parliament while in custody, and the associated expenses, will be examined in the light of parliamentary rules and relevant Supreme Court precedents. The matter is pending further hearing, with the court awaiting a detailed explanation on the calculation of expenses and the legal basis for imposing them on the MP during his custody parole.
