Today, On 29th July, Delhi High Court told detained MP Engineer Rashid to go back to the original bench for bail modification, refusing to hear a fresh plea. Saying “Not happening today,” the Court posted the matter for hearing on July 31.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court heard the petition filed by jailed Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, who is also known as Engineer Rashid. He had filed two requests one for interim bail and another challenging the travel cost directions for attending Parliament.
The case came up before a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur.
Advocate Vikhyat Oberoi appeared on behalf of the MP and informed the Court that Senior Advocate Hariharan, who was supposed to argue the matter, was stuck due to heavy rain. He asked for a passover.
The Court allowed it once and observed,
“It’s a rainy day.”
However, when the matter was called again, Senior Advocate Hariharan was still not present.
The bench responded,
“You’ve already moved a modification plea. We won’t revisit the earlier order. Even the new appeal raises the same issue.”
The Court further observed,
“Maybe res judicata doesn’t apply, but public interest principle does. The same issue can’t be heard repeatedly.”
To this, Advocate Oberoi said,
“There’s also an alternate interim bail request.”
But the Court clarified,
“That was considered earlier too. Press the modification plea before the original bench; it will cover future sessions.”
The judges made it clear that filing new appeals for each session of Parliament is not a sustainable practice.
They said,
“For every Parliament session, there can’t be a fresh appeal. Provide PCR and nominal roll.”
Oberoi argued that the previous interim bail plea was not decided earlier because it was withdrawn during a custody parole hearing.
He stated,
“Last time, I withdrew interim bail plea during custody parole. It wasn’t decided earlier.”
Once again, he repeated,
“There’s also an alternate interim bail request.”
The Court repeated its earlier stance,
“That was considered earlier too. Press the modification plea before the original bench; it will cover future sessions.”
They reiterated,
“For every Parliament session, there can’t be a fresh appeal. Provide PCR and nominal roll.”
Oberoi maintained his position,
“Last time, I withdrew interim bail plea during custody parole. It wasn’t decided earlier.”
Despite his repeated requests, the Court refused to grant any further passover and gave a clear response.
Justice Vivek Chaudhary remarked,
“It’s not happening today. Go to the previous bench for modification.”
Oberoi pleaded that it would waste valuable time as the Parliament session is going on.
He urged the bench,
“It will take away my time. Parliament is ongoing every day, please list it for tomorrow.”
However, the bench underlined the need to follow the earlier division bench’s order and said that they could not reopen the issue without strong reasons.
They said,
“There must be a reason for us to act in appellate jurisdiction. Judicial discipline requires us to follow an earlier DB order. If you want, we’ll record this in writing.”
The Court also pointed out the delay caused by the petitioner’s side and said,
“Your modification plea has been pending for 3 months. You delay proceedings and then try to pressure the Court.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik appeared virtually on behalf of the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The Court listed the next hearing in the matter for July 31.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
