Validity of some sections challenged in High Court
Monday, 9 June 2008
The High Court (HC) Sunday issued a rule upon the government to explain why certain provisions of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2008, should not be declared illegal and ultra vires the constitution, reports UNB.
Responding to a writ petition filed by two lawyers challenging the validity of certain sections of the ordinance, a HC division bench, headed by Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, issued the rule that is returnable within two weeks.
The Law Secretary and the Secretary to the President have been made respondents to the writ moved by Barrister Abdur Razzak.
The writ petitioners challenged the validity of a score of sections of the ordinance, as those are in conflict with some articles of the constitution that need to be addressed, according to the petition.
Moving the petition, Barrister Razzak submitted that the ordinance limits the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) to determine the manner and procedure of punishing for contempt of court.
The ordinance also violated the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary and therefore those are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and void, he argued.
Two lawyers - Shamsul Haque and Tajul Islam - filed the writ petition.
Meanwhile, the hearing on a writ petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the unassailable Emergency Power Rules (EPR), including denial of bail, began before the High Court (HC) Sunday.
Moving the petition, Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the EPR on one hand has curbed the citizens' rights to seek bail and taken away the HC's power to grant bail on the other.
"The constitution cannot be amended by an ordinance," he said before the division bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Farid Ahmed.
Barrister Amir said the promulgation of the Emergency Power Ordinance hit the basic structure of the constitution. "Even the bureaucrats have been given both the executive and legislative powers," he added.
After a brief argument by Amir, the hearing was adjourned for a week.
The writ petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the EPR denying bail was filed Thursday by former adviser of caretaker government Sultana Kamal, New Age editor Nurul Kabir and associate professor of Dhaka University Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
They are challenging the validity of the EPR sections 11(3), 19 (gha) and 19 (uma). The EPR Section 11(3) bars bail to any convict-appellant tried under the EPR.
The section 19 (gha) forbids seeking bail by an accused facing criminal case under the EPR during the inquiry, investigation and trial of the case no matter what is stated in sections 497 and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law.
The legality of another section under the EPR 19 (uma) has also been challenged. It negates rights of an accused to seek redress from any higher courts against any order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial until the delivery of the final verdict.
Responding to a writ petition filed by two lawyers challenging the validity of certain sections of the ordinance, a HC division bench, headed by Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, issued the rule that is returnable within two weeks.
The Law Secretary and the Secretary to the President have been made respondents to the writ moved by Barrister Abdur Razzak.
The writ petitioners challenged the validity of a score of sections of the ordinance, as those are in conflict with some articles of the constitution that need to be addressed, according to the petition.
Moving the petition, Barrister Razzak submitted that the ordinance limits the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) to determine the manner and procedure of punishing for contempt of court.
The ordinance also violated the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary and therefore those are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and void, he argued.
Two lawyers - Shamsul Haque and Tajul Islam - filed the writ petition.
Meanwhile, the hearing on a writ petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the unassailable Emergency Power Rules (EPR), including denial of bail, began before the High Court (HC) Sunday.
Moving the petition, Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the EPR on one hand has curbed the citizens' rights to seek bail and taken away the HC's power to grant bail on the other.
"The constitution cannot be amended by an ordinance," he said before the division bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Farid Ahmed.
Barrister Amir said the promulgation of the Emergency Power Ordinance hit the basic structure of the constitution. "Even the bureaucrats have been given both the executive and legislative powers," he added.
After a brief argument by Amir, the hearing was adjourned for a week.
The writ petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the EPR denying bail was filed Thursday by former adviser of caretaker government Sultana Kamal, New Age editor Nurul Kabir and associate professor of Dhaka University Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
They are challenging the validity of the EPR sections 11(3), 19 (gha) and 19 (uma). The EPR Section 11(3) bars bail to any convict-appellant tried under the EPR.
The section 19 (gha) forbids seeking bail by an accused facing criminal case under the EPR during the inquiry, investigation and trial of the case no matter what is stated in sections 497 and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law.
The legality of another section under the EPR 19 (uma) has also been challenged. It negates rights of an accused to seek redress from any higher courts against any order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial until the delivery of the final verdict.