Delhi HC seek NIA's stand on MP Engineer Rashid's plea challenging terror funding charges
A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Rashid's plea and granted time to the agency to file its reply.
The high court also called for the trial court record in the matter and listed the plea for further hearing on October 6.
Besides, Rashid's regular bail plea in the case is also pending in the high court.
Earlier, the high court had issued notice to the NIA only on the aspect of delay of around 1,100 days in filing the plea challenging framing of charges against him.
Rashid's plea challenging a trial court's order asking to bear travel expenses of ₹1.44 lakh per day for attending the session in custody between July 24 and August 4, and seeking interim bail was listed before the bench Thursday.
The division bench was of the view that these two pleas be heard by the same bench which had previously heard a similar plea filed by him during the Budget session.
The court said the pleas be listed before a division bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, subject to the orders of the division bench. On March 25, a division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Bhambhani had asked Rashid to deposit ₹four lakh with the prison authorities as travel expenses for taking him to Parliament to attend the Budget session "in-custody".
Rashid has been lodged in Tihar jail since 2019 after he was arrested by the NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror funding case.
On March 21, the trial court dismissed Rashid's second regular bail application.
In the appeal against the decision, the J-K MP said he has already spent over five years in custody and the delay in trial, which was unlikely to be concluded soon, entitled him to be released on bail.
The bail plea also contended that the allegations against him were baseless as he was never involved in secessionist and terrorist activities.
'The appellant is a mainstream political leader of J&K having been elected twice as an MLA and recently as an MP. Due to his passionate engagement in mainstream politics, he became a potential target for those who preached separatist ideologies including militant outfits, labelling him as a traitor,' the pleas submitted.
'A mere political comment made on the hanging of Afzal Guru showing disapprobation of the measures of the government or criticising a judgement of the Courts cannot be construed to mean as an association with terrorists much less any association which has a nexus with the commission of any unlawful or terrorist activity,' it submitted.
Rashid also sought bail to enable him to attend the Lok Sabha sessions, saying his presence was imperative as he represented 45 per cent of the Kashmir valley and had been 'assigned the role to act as a bridge between Parliament and the people of his constituency'.
The Baramulla MP, who defeated Omar Abdullah in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, is facing trial in a terror funding case with allegations that he funded separatists and terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to the NIA's FIR, Rashid's name cropped up during the interrogation of businessman and co-accused Zahoor Watali.
After being chargesheeted in October 2019, a special NIA court framed charges against Rashid and others in March 2022 under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121 (waging war against the government), and 124A (sedition) of IPC and for offences relating to terrorist acts and terror funding under UAPA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case: SC to consider listing bail plea of Surendra Gadling
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday took note of repeated adjournments and assured early listing of the bail plea of advocate Surendra Gadling accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case: SC to consider listing bail plea of Surendra Gadling A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was urged by his counsel and senior advocate Anand Grover, who said his client had been in jail for "6.5 years". "The bail plea has been adjourned 11 times in the Supreme Court,' Grover added. The CJI said, 'We will list it.' On March 27, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal adjourned the bail hearing of Gadling and activist Jyoti Jagtap arrested in the case. It also deferred the petition filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the bail granted to activist Mahesh Raut. Raut was given bail by the Bombay High Court but the order was stayed after the NIA sought a stay on the verdict to challenge it before the apex court. Gadling was accused of providing aid to the Maoists and allegedly conspiring with various co-accused, including the ones absconding in the case. He was booked under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the IPC and the prosecution claimed Gadling provided secret information about government activities and maps of certain areas to underground Maoist rebels. He reportedly asked Maoists to oppose the operation of Surjagarh mines, and instigated several locals to join the movement. Gadling is also involved in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case relating to the alleged provocative speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017. The police claimed the speeches triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial in Pune district. The high court had said Jagtap was an active member of the Kabir Kala Manch group, which during its stage play at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017 gave not only aggressive, but highly provocative slogans. "We are of the considered opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the allegations or accusations of the NIA against the appellant having conspired, attempted, advocated and abetted the commission of a terrorist act as prima facie true," the court had said. According to the NIA, the KKM is a front organisation of the Communist Party of India . The high court had dismissed the appeal filed by the activist-cum-singer challenging a February 2022 order of a special court refusing her bail. The 2017 Elgar Parishad conclave was held at Shaniwarwada, an 18th-century palace-fort located in the heart of Pune city. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
The Income Tax Bill, 2025 withdrawn, an updated version of the bill to be introduced on Monday August 11
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Clause 21: House property The Committee, after a careful review of Clause 21, identified drafting issues in 21(2) that could lead to ambiguity in determining the annual value of properties experiencing vacancy. The committee, therefore, recommend two key changes: first, that the phrase "in normal course" be deleted, and second, that the clause be amended to explicitly provide for a comparison of the actual rent received with the "deeming rent," as was available in the existing Act. The committee believes these adjustments are vital for enhancing fairness, reducing ambiguity in the valuation of vacant properties, and leading to a more equitable tax treatment for property owners. The Committee, further, recommended that the rest of the Clauses may be accepted in their current form. Deductions from income from house property (Clause 22, 22(1), and 22(2)): Firstly, in Clause 22(1)(a), to explicitly state that the standard 30% deduction be computed on the annual value after deducting municipal taxes. Secondly, in Clause 22(2), to ensure that the deduction for pre-construction interest is available for let-out properties in addition to self-occupied ones, aligning it with the existing Act. Clause No 19: Deductions from salaries (Schedule VII) Clause 20: Commercial Property The New Income Tax Bill, 2025 has been withdrawn by the Central government as of August 8, Income-Tax Bill, 2025, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 13th February 2025 to replace the existing Income-Tax Act, 1961, has been formally withdrawn.A new version of the Income Tax Bill, incorporating most of the recommendations made by the Select Committee chaired by Shri Baijayant Panda, can be introduced on Monday, August avoid confusion by multiple versions of the Bill and to provide a clear and updated version with all changes incorporated, the new version of the Income Tax Bill will be introduced for the consideration of the House on the old version of the new tax bill 2025, several drafting errors were found by lawyers and chartered accountants pointed out. The Lok Sabha Select Committee also pointed out some of these errors which are as follows:"The Committee, after deliberations on Clause 22, identified the need to clarify the computation of deductions to enhance fairness and transparency for property owners. The Committee, therefore, recommended two key amendments:'The Committee, after a careful review of Clause 19, identified a gap in the equitable tax treatment of commuted pension for different types of recipients. The Committee, therefore, recommended that a deduction for commuted pension, similar to that available to employees under Clause 19, be explicitly allowed under the head "Income from other sources" for non-employees who receive such pension from a fund. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further modifications are necessary for Clause 19 and recommend the acceptance of its remaining provisions as drafted.''The Committee, upon reviewing Clause 20 identified a change in wording in 20(2) from the previous Act that could lead to an incorrect tax treatment for certain business properties . The Committee, therefore, recommended that in Clause 20(2), the word 'occupied' be replaced with the phrase 'as he may occupy' to ensure that temporarily unutilized or ready-to-use business properties are clearly excluded from taxation under the house property head. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Ministry amend the clause as proposed to accurately delineate the scope of "Income from house property". The Committee further accepted the remaining provision of Clause 20 as proposed.'
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Poll body refuses to reveal reasons behind its 45-day CCTV rule in RTI reply
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has declined to provide crucial information regarding its decision to reduce CCTV footage retention from polling stations to just 45 days, citing that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. This was disclosed exclusively in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by India revelation becomes significant against the backdrop of Congress MP Rahul Gandhi launching a scathing attack on the ECI's CCTV rule. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha said the ECI's decision was deeply the poll body, he said, "They said we are going to destroy the CCTV footage. This was surprising to us because there was a question in Maharashtra about a massive voting after 5.30 pm for the numbers to add up." "Our people knew that in the polling booths, no such thing happened. There was no massive voting after 5.30 pm. These two things made us believe with reasonable certainty that the Election Commission of India was colluding with the BJP to steal elections," Gandhi QUERY DETAILSThrough the RTI application, India Today sought three critical pieces of information from the ECI.A copy of the study or report that formed the basis for the ECI's May 30, 2025 decision to reduce election video footage retention to just 45 complete file, including all internal file notings, and correspondence related to the revision of video footage retention formal assessment regarding alleged misuse of election footage on social media platforms, and access to such documents if they BODY REACTIONThe Election Commission categorically refused to provide any of the requested information, uniformly citing the pendency of the Supreme Court case."The matter in the RTI application is sub-judice due to the pendency of WP (C) no. 18/2025 titled Jairam Ramesh vs Union of India before the Supreme Court of India and the same is tentatively listed for hearing on 22/07/2025. Therefore, the information sought in the instant RTI application cannot be provided at this stage," the poll watchdog said. The case is now scheduled for a hearing on August 11, RTI RULES SAYThe ECI's refusal appears questionable under existing RTI frameworks. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that sub-judice status was not, by itself, a valid ground for withholding a landmark 2017 ruling, the CIC stated, "At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."This precedent suggests that the ECI cannot take refuge in the sub-judice excuse unless it cites a specific court order prohibiting disclosure to justify a complete information Today has filed an appeal against the ECI's refusal with the appellate authority under the RTI Act. The story will be updated as and when a response is received from the appellate authority.- EndsTune InMust Watch
