Voters in Baramulla did something bold in 2024. 

They elected a man sitting in judicial custody to speak for them in Parliament, betting that his voice would eventually reach the floor of the Lok Sabha. 

It hasn’t, at least not reliably. 

Er. Rashid’s attendance depends on judges granting him permission to leave custody, hearing by hearing, session by session. 

The arrangement raises a question bigger than one man’s case: what happens to a democracy when the ballot box and the jail cell compete for the same person, and the jail cell keeps winning?

Start with what the law actually allows. 

Nothing in India’s election code disqualifies a person in pretrial custody from standing for office. 

Rashid contested while jailed, won by a wide margin, and became a sitting Member of Parliament still awaiting trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 

Parliament has drawn a clean line here: conviction triggers disqualification, accusation does not. 

That distinction protects a foundational principle of criminal law, the presumption of innocence, and it should stay intact. But it also produces an odd outcome. 

A constituency can win a representative at the ballot box and then watch him disappear into a custody schedule for most of his term.

UAPA Case: Police Raids Multiple Locations in Baramulla

CIK Conducts Raids in Srinagar in UAPA Case

This isn’t an argument about........

© Kashmir Observer