HC halts appointment under Attorney Service Ordinance
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
The High Court (HC) Tuesday slapped a three-month stay order on new appointments under the new Attorney Service Ordinance, reports bdnews24.com.
The order came after three Supreme Court lawyers filed a writ petition to challenge the legality of the ordinance, promulgated by the president on May 18.
Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Mashuk Hossain Ahmed passed the orders.
The High Court also issued a rule nisi on the government asking it to explain in four weeks why the Attorney Service Ordinance would not be declared unconstitutional and illegal.
The three lawyers who filed the appeal are Abdul Mannan Khan, Chonchol Kumar Dutta and Khondker Anjuman Ara Shelley.
On behalf of the writ petitioners, senior advocate Mahbubey Alam said in court that the President could not promulgate an ordinance if it was not extremely necessary or has no immediate connections to elections during the rule of the caretaker government.
The Attorney Service Ordinance does not fall in line with the 'extremely-important' category.
In the hearing, the lawyer said, the attorney general is a constitutional post, to which the president appoints in line with Article 64 of the constitution.
Additional attorneys general, deputy attorneys general and assistant attorneys general are part of the Office of the Attorney General.
Alam said, according to the constitution, the Office of Attorney General must work independently, but the new ordinance undermined its constitutional and independent character.
The ordinance has kept only the attorney general independent and subjected all other officials to executive authority, he said.
The order came after three Supreme Court lawyers filed a writ petition to challenge the legality of the ordinance, promulgated by the president on May 18.
Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Mashuk Hossain Ahmed passed the orders.
The High Court also issued a rule nisi on the government asking it to explain in four weeks why the Attorney Service Ordinance would not be declared unconstitutional and illegal.
The three lawyers who filed the appeal are Abdul Mannan Khan, Chonchol Kumar Dutta and Khondker Anjuman Ara Shelley.
On behalf of the writ petitioners, senior advocate Mahbubey Alam said in court that the President could not promulgate an ordinance if it was not extremely necessary or has no immediate connections to elections during the rule of the caretaker government.
The Attorney Service Ordinance does not fall in line with the 'extremely-important' category.
In the hearing, the lawyer said, the attorney general is a constitutional post, to which the president appoints in line with Article 64 of the constitution.
Additional attorneys general, deputy attorneys general and assistant attorneys general are part of the Office of the Attorney General.
Alam said, according to the constitution, the Office of Attorney General must work independently, but the new ordinance undermined its constitutional and independent character.
The ordinance has kept only the attorney general independent and subjected all other officials to executive authority, he said.