4 of 7 judges declare CG system illegal

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Sunday, September 16, 2012

4 of 7 judges declare CG system illegal


4 of 7 judges declare CG system illegal

Star Online Report
Four of the seven judges declared the constitutional provision of caretaker government (CG) system illegal, the full verdict of the 13th amendment of the constitution said.

Click here to read the full verdict

Two judges ordered in favour of the CG system while another dispose off the matter, the full verdict of the amended constitution which was published Sunday night said.

On May 10 last year, the Supreme Court declared illegal a 15-year-old constitutional provision that mandates an elected government to transfer power to an unelected non-partisan caretaker administration to oversee a new parliamentary election on completion of its term.

A seven-member SC panel, headed by Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque, reached the verdict on majority vote.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Full judgment of 13th Amendment published


Full judgment of 13th Amendment published | Bangladesh | bdnews24.com

Sun, Sep 16th, 2012 10:59 pm BdST

Dhaka, Sep 16 (bdnews24.com)—The remaining six judges of the Supreme Court bench that declared the 13th constitutional amendment illegal signed the full verdict on Sunday night, almost a year and a half after the historic judgment rescinded the caretaker government provision.

The full copy of the verdict, reached by a majority decision, was signed around 10pm following a series of meetings among the judges throughout the day.

Former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque and Supreme Court Registrar AKM Shamsul Islam confirmed bdnews24.com about the signing of the full verdict.

Justice Haque had signed the 342-page judgement in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

He was the top judge who headed the seven-strong bench that delivered the verdict on May 10, 2011. Justices Mahmud Hossain, Sinha and Mozammel Hossain agreed with him. Justices Wahab Miah and Sultana differed while Justice Iman Ali left the matter for Parliament to decide.

The judgement declared illegal the 15-year-old constitutional provision that mandated an elected government to transfer power to an unelected non-partisan caretaker administration to oversee a new parliamentary election on completion of its term.

In its short verdict, the apex court also observed that the rescinded system may be practised for another two parliamentary terms.

On June 30 last year, the Awami League-led Grand Alliance finally abolished the caretaker government system allowing general elections under elected partisan governments.

The court also asked Parliament to amend the Constitution to make sure that former Chief Justices or any other Supreme Court judges are not chosen as head of caretaker governments in case the system is kept for another two parliamentary elections.

This is the first time a verdict has been written in mixed languages – Bengali and English. Usually the court writes verdict in English. Justice Khairul Haque wrote the main part of the verdict in Bengali. Justice Ali wrote 150 pages of the verdict.

The main opposition BNP has been opposing the constitutional amendment claiming that the government partly implemented the verdict, but overlooked the other part on two elections under the caretakers.

The opposition insists that no election will be allowed under any partisan government. Though the caretaker government was introduced first in 1996, the elections taken place in 1990 were held under an interim government.

The BNP was forced by Awami League to introduce the caretaker government system through constitutional amendment for the first time. But the system came under scrutiny as the last military-backed caretaker government, which had a three-month mandate to hold elections, managed to linger on power for two years since 2007.

The High Court announced the caretaker government system legal after several people including Advocate M Salim Ullah challenged the 13th Amendment in 2004. They challenged the decision at the Appellate Division, drawing out the order.

bdnews24.com/sn/eh/bd/2234h

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I am curious to know whether the 13th Amendment judgement can remain valid although the former Chief Justice signed the ruling after having gone into retirement. Presumably a retired government official no longer has authority to carry out any duties or functions once that person has entered retirement and left active service. Please can anyone clarify this point for me?

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

I am curious to know whether the 13th Amendment judgement can remain valid although the former Chief Justice signed the ruling after having gone into retirement. Presumably a retired government official no longer has authority to carry out any duties or functions once that person has entered retirement and left active service. Please can anyone clarify this point for me?

You are a barrister and you should know it well. Now the question is had he signed it backdated??? If so then at least on paper it is valid. But you are right a retired government official can not sign anything. But my question is if he was retired then why it was necessary for him to sign. It could have been done by the Chief Judge of that time.

Anyway congrates for becoming Jr. Think Tank.

 

[DarkPrince]

I am curious to know whether the 13th Amendment judgement can remain valid although the former Chief Justice signed the ruling after having gone into retirement. Presumably a retired government official no longer has authority to carry out any duties or functions once that person has entered retirement and left active service. Please can anyone clarify this point for me?

wow u became jr. think tank nice

mods make me 1 2

 

[TopCat]

I am curious to know whether the 13th Amendment judgement can remain valid although the former Chief Justice signed the ruling after having gone into retirement. Presumably a retired government official no longer has authority to carry out any duties or functions once that person has entered retirement and left active service. Please can anyone clarify this point for me?

I think chief justice knows the law.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

You are a barrister and you should know it well. Now the question is had he signed it backdated??? If so then at least on paper it is valid. But you are right a retired government official can not sign anything. But my question is if he was retired then why it was necessary for him to sign. It could have been done by the Chief Judge of that time.

Anyway congrates for becoming Jr. Think Tank.

Former chief justice ABM Khairul Haque on September 13 signed the copy of full text of the judgment on the 13th amendment of constitution that declared the caretaker government system illegal. This is more than a year after he retired as Chief Justice and delivered the judgment in the 13th Amendment case.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I think chief justice knows the law.

I don't think he does .....

 

[TopCat]

I don't think he does .....

Then you should apply for the post.. LOL

 

[kobiraaz]

CongratZ MBI on your promotion from senior member to Jr. think tank !

 

[idune]

I am curious to know whether the 13th Amendment judgement can remain valid although the former Chief Justice signed the ruling after having gone into retirement. Presumably a retired government official no longer has authority to carry out any duties or functions once that person has entered retirement and left active service. Please can anyone clarify this point for me?

As long Awami kangaroo court is in session all illegal acts even by judges are valid. So, 13th amendment judgement and signing it after retirement is by no means a legal act.

But even more fundamental illegal act done by Awami kangaroo court is that it over stepped authority to strike constitutional amendment. If this is the precedence then there is no need for parliament, court can dictate law. But lately awami league MPs are all against Sc power over Parliament. Now that kangaroo judgement is rendered, Awami League wants curtail reach of court going after their looting.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Then you should apply for the post.. LOL

I am constitutionally barred ......

 

[Al-zakir]

I think chief justice knows the law.

Some guy went to court to get back his property(moon Cinema) or something and what this Awami chamcha did. He declare 5th amendment illegal. I mean how was that even related? His headless rule created a lot of trouble for the nation. He will go down in history as fasadi ******.

By the way, did that guy got his Cinema hall back?

Congratulation Munshi Bhai for the promotion.

 

[TopCat]

Some guy went to court to get back his property(moon Cinema) or something and what this Awami chamcha did. He declare 5th amendment illegal. I mean how was that even related? His headless rule created a lot of trouble for the nation. He will go down in history as fasadi ******.

By the way, did that guy got his Cinema hall back?

Congratulation Munshi Bhai for the promotion.

Ok then, you should apply for the post. YOu know the law better than the chief justice... LOL

The problem with us Bengalis that everybody is expert in everything...

 

[eastwatch]

Parliament is a sovereign body of the govt in a democracy. All other branches of the govt, executive and judicial, are subservient to Parliament. Parliament enacts a law, judiciary implements it. Parliament decides on a domestic issue, executive branch follows the decision. The latter two branches are responsible to Parliament.

However, in case of BD it is opposite. Judiciary has decided on the CTG amendment that has been passed by a two-third majority of the elected representatives in the Parliament. It means four judges together are stronger than the more than 200 elected representatives of the people.

The judiciary should have thrown out the case from being filed because it is not in their jurisdiction to contest a Parliament decision. But, BD is a country wher these judicial tails are moving the body of Parliament at ease with of course a tacit approval from the stupid AL PM, who is worried of a military takeover during CTG.

I think, this four man verdict by a Court of Law should not be regarded as binding because it has superseded the power and sovereignty of the Parliament.