Emergency rules challenged in HC

FE Team | Published: August 22, 2007 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00

After seven months of the state of emergency the country has passed through, the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) made under the Emergency Power Ordinance has come under challenge in the High Court, reports UNB.
After preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed by an accused in an extortion case placed under the EPR, a division bench Tuesday issued rule upon the government to explain why the provisions of the EPR cited in the petition should not be declared ultra vires of the constitutional fundamental rights.
The bench, comprising Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman and Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, also issued rule upon the government to show cause why its action placing the petitioner's case under the EPR should not be declared "without lawful authority".
The twin-rule is made returnable in eight weeks, said the court order.
Also came under challenge the legality of the EPR provisions like empowering the law-enforcers to arrest and search any person without warrant, prohibiting a person detained on corruption charges from applying for bail, restricting his right to justice in higher court, and freezing his account or attachment of property before conviction.
Besides, the validity of the government's authority to place an extortion case under the Emergency Power Rules and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) power to serve notice asking any corruption suspect to submit his wealth statement have also been challenged.
Advocate Aminul Haque Helal, a counsel for the petitioner, told the news agency that they challenged certain rules made under the EPO as those "violate" the Articles of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
"The Constitution guarantees entitlement of a person to protection of law, equality before law, protection of right to life and personal liberty and protection in respect of trial and punishment," he said.
Referring to the Article 7(2) of the Constitution, he further contended that if any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.