Delhi High Court Seeks NIA’s Response On MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh’s Plea For Parliament Attendance

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) regarding Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh’s request to attend the ongoing Parliament session.

Sheikh, an accused in a terror case, is currently in custody and had earlier pleaded for permission, but the special NIA court rejected his request.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the NIA to submit a response and file an affidavit if it has any objections.

The court has scheduled the hearing for 18 March.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, representing Sheikh, argued that the MP is seeking permission to fulfill his parliamentary duties.

He pointed out that Sheikh had previously granted a two-day custody parole in February 2025 to attend the session.

During the hearing, the court asked about the duration of the Parliament session. The senior advocate replied that it would continue until 4 April.

However, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik, representing the NIA, opposed the plea. He stated that the earlier custody parole was granted under special circumstances when there was no designated court.

“I represent 45 percent population of Kashmir,” Hariharan argued, emphasizing the significance of Sheikh’s participation in parliamentary proceedings.

In response, the NIA requested time to file a reply, which the court agreed to consider.

Sheikh had previously moved the Delhi High Court after the trial court denied his request for custody parole.

His plea seeks interim bail or custody parole to attend Parliament from 10 March to 4 April 2025.

On 10 March, Special Judge (NIA) Chander Jit Singh at Patiala House Court rejected Sheikh’s application for custody parole.

His legal team, led by Advocate Vikhyat Oberoi and Nishita Gupt, argued that he does not pose a threat and had granted similar permissions earlier.

They also noted that security arrangements would be in place, with jail authorities escorting him to Parliament and civil-clothed personnel monitoring him inside.

The defense emphasized that he had previously attended sessions on 11 and 13 February.

His counsel assured that his attendance would not disrupt proceedings. He reiterated that custody parole would allow him to participate without security concerns.

Also Read: Delhi HC Seeks Delhi Police’s Response On AI Use For Tracing Missing Persons