Bangladesh Supreme Court lawyer Chowdhury Mohammad Redwan-e-Khoda certainly deserves thanks. In adverse conditions, he set an example by seeking remedies for constitutional rights.
On February 23, he filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the “extra-constitutional” July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order and Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance.
A Bangladesh High Court bench comprising Justice Rajik Al Jalil and Justice Mohammad Anwarul Islam Shahin on Tuesday (March 3) issued a rule asking why the July National Charter and the Referendum Ordinance should not be declared illegal. The respondents in the case have been instructed to respond. However, the court did not grant any interim stay order.
Sources said senior lawyers Ahsanul Karim and Syed Mamun Mahbub, Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, and Gazi Kamrul Islam Pramon represented the writ petitioner during today’s hearing.
Given Ahsanul Karim and Jyotirmoy Barua’s prior history of fighting for constitutional rights, it is expected that they will contest this writ. If the “aspirations” of the state and political “mobs” are not imposed upon the judiciary, there appears to be little reason for these extra-constitutional ordinances not to be annulled.
Naturally, Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party became parties to the writ. Senior lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir appeared for Jamaat-e-Islami, while senior lawyer Mohammad Hossain represented the NCP. On the other hand, Acting Attorney General Mohammad Arshadur Rouf and Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque appeared for the state.
Last week, another writ was filed by Supreme Court lawyer Gazi Mohammad Mahbub Alam challenging the legality of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order and the February 16 letter issued for administering the oath to members of the Constitutional Reform Council under that order.
In Redwan-e-Khoda’s writ petition, it was requested that a rule be issued asking why Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance, along with the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, should not be declared beyond lawful authority, as they were in conflict with the Constitution.
Upon issuance of the rule, an interim directive was also sought to suspend the operation of Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance while the matter remains pending.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh DGFI chief Maj Gen Kaisar Rashid Chowdhury in New Delhi
Similarly, Mahbub Alam’s writ sought a rule asking why the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order and the February 16 letter regarding the oath of members of the Constitutional Reform Council should not be declared void for being inconsistent with the Constitution. A directive was sought to suspend all related activities pending disposal of the matter. The court has also issued a rule in that writ.
If any ordinance or law conflicts with the Constitution of Bangladesh, the higher courts have the authority to declare it void.
