SC hearing on govt's stay petition today
Sunday, 10 February 2008
All eyes are on the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) as it is poised to hear today (Sunday) government's petition seeking a stay on the operation of the High Court (HC) judgment that declared illegal the extortion case against detained ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for trial under the Emergency Power Rules (EPR), reports UNB.
Earlier Wednesday, the High Court, following a writ petition of Hasina, quashed the entire trial proceedings of the Tk 30-million extortion case filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury.
The Appellate Division's decision is seen crucial on two counts-upholding the image of the highest judiciary and the fate of all the corruption cases being tried under the EPR.
Court sources said Attorney General Fida M Kamal, the chief government law officer, filed the stay petition as it preferred leave to appeal to overturn the High Court verdict.
On the other hand, Barrister Rafique-ul Huq, the principal counsel for Hasina, countered the government petition.
The government said since it had not yet received the certified copy of the HC judgement, it wanted an interim stay on operation of the HC judgement and orders.
The government further submitted that the High Court what it said exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the trial proceedings of the extortion case for trial under the EPR.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq opposed the government plea on the grounds that the government had not complied with the set rules of the Appellate Division in filing the provisional leave petition. "So, it cannot be entertained for hearing," he said.
He contended that unless the High Court orders and judgement were set aside by the Appellate Division through hearing a regular leave petition on merit, the High Court judgement could not be stayed.
He said any such attempt would amount to frustrating the High Court judgement passed under Article 102 of the Constitution, as Article 102 is one of the basic pillars of the Constitution. "Such a provision cannot be frustrated or knocked down without examining the judgement of the High Court Division," he added.
He further said there is no urgency in the case, since the respondent (Hasina) cannot come out of jail only for the HC judgement.
If the High Court verdict was stayed and the trial was allowed to be continued and concluded, then Hasina should suffer an irreparable loss and injury, the counsel argued.
Disagreeing with the government plea on quashing the trial proceedings of the extortion case by the HC exceeding its jurisdiction, Barrister Huq, citing case decisions, said, "If the High Court gives any relief beyond its Rule, such an action is admissible."
Earlier Wednesday, the High Court, following a writ petition of Hasina, quashed the entire trial proceedings of the Tk 30-million extortion case filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury.
The Appellate Division's decision is seen crucial on two counts-upholding the image of the highest judiciary and the fate of all the corruption cases being tried under the EPR.
Court sources said Attorney General Fida M Kamal, the chief government law officer, filed the stay petition as it preferred leave to appeal to overturn the High Court verdict.
On the other hand, Barrister Rafique-ul Huq, the principal counsel for Hasina, countered the government petition.
The government said since it had not yet received the certified copy of the HC judgement, it wanted an interim stay on operation of the HC judgement and orders.
The government further submitted that the High Court what it said exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the trial proceedings of the extortion case for trial under the EPR.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq opposed the government plea on the grounds that the government had not complied with the set rules of the Appellate Division in filing the provisional leave petition. "So, it cannot be entertained for hearing," he said.
He contended that unless the High Court orders and judgement were set aside by the Appellate Division through hearing a regular leave petition on merit, the High Court judgement could not be stayed.
He said any such attempt would amount to frustrating the High Court judgement passed under Article 102 of the Constitution, as Article 102 is one of the basic pillars of the Constitution. "Such a provision cannot be frustrated or knocked down without examining the judgement of the High Court Division," he added.
He further said there is no urgency in the case, since the respondent (Hasina) cannot come out of jail only for the HC judgement.
If the High Court verdict was stayed and the trial was allowed to be continued and concluded, then Hasina should suffer an irreparable loss and injury, the counsel argued.
Disagreeing with the government plea on quashing the trial proceedings of the extortion case by the HC exceeding its jurisdiction, Barrister Huq, citing case decisions, said, "If the High Court gives any relief beyond its Rule, such an action is admissible."