Can a single judge hear a split bench ruling, or is it referred to a larger three-judge bench? The Delhi High Court is scheduled to consider this aspect in January, while dealing with the petition filed by Independent MP from Baramulla, Abdul Rashid Sheikh, alias Engineer Rashid, who is seeking exemption from travel and security costs to attend Parliament proceedings during his conditional custody period.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court on November 7 delivered a split judgment on Rasheed’s confession, following which the matter was placed before Justice Ravinder Dodija on Friday.
In brief, the lawyers referred to Section 433 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, a procedure in which the judges of the appellate court are divided equally, which is equivalent to Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and expressed that he would have to decide whether he can hear it or whether it will have to be decided by a larger bench.
Story continues below this ad
Judge Dodija has now reserved the matter for consideration on January 14.
Rasheed’s plea was heard by a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anoop Bhambhani. While Justice Chaudhry held that Rasheed had “no right, duty, entitlement or privilege, as it may be called, to attend the proceedings of Parliament while in lawful custody”, Justice Bhambhani took a contrary position.
Justice Bhambhani clearly held that the only costs payable by Rasheed would be towards the expenses of the prison vehicle and the expenses of the guard vehicle at Rs 1,036 and Rs 1,020 per day, respectively, and he was not required to pay for the police escort.
The police estimated the daily cost that Rasheed would pay to attend Parliament at approximately 1.45 thousand rupees. In March this year, the Delhi HC had allowed the MP to attend Parliament during the budget session, but imposed a condition that he would bear Rasheed’s travel expenses and other arrangements while in state custody.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Bhambani held that “the only legitimate expense that (Rashid) could be asked to bear is the cost of transportation to take him from prison to Parliament and back; and the State’s demand that (Rashid) must pay the charges to all police officers, who are public servants, and whom the State says are required to accompany (Rashid), is completely unjustified and deserves to be quashed.”
(Tags for translation) Delhi High Court Division Judgment
